Liberate us

May 6, 2003 10:58 AM

Wal-Mart Inc. stopped selling magazines Maxim, Stuff and FHMIn the past, Wal-Mart has refused to sell CD's that carry warning labels about explicit lyrics...
Who is behind this censorship ? I can think of only one group = CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS,
every day these hypocritical monsters are taking more freedoms away from us. They think Jesus would drive a SUV but would never read a Maxim magazine. I am calling on Canada and France to liberate us from these monsters...
posted by bureaustyle (84 comments total)

Why don't you tell us how you feel about fundamentalists next time?

I have a bad feeling about this.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2003

To be fair, Maxim, FHM and Stuff are absolute garbage.

Their proliferation is due to puritatnical interests that are scared to death that a naked woman will pervert young Johnny's mind.

Playboy had naked women, but at least they were next to articles by Norman Mailer.
posted by hipnerd at 11:04 AM on May 6, 2003

I too hate CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS and just the other day was reading a story about CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS and it made me angry, they wanted to censor something or drink the blood of the cursed or whatever it is that those crazy CHRISTIAN FUNDAMNETALISTS do, boy those guys are freaking insane if it's one thing world doesn't need it's CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS or for that matter PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT WAL MART SELLS.
posted by xmutex at 11:04 AM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart is still a business. If you want Maxim/FFM/Playboy, I'm sure you can deny Wal-Mart your business and find them elsewhere. Not selling a product they don't like isn't denying you your "freedom."
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:08 AM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart is public owned? Maybe the public does have a say.
Private owned, would you still have a problem since it's not your store? Why, I ask: every day these hypocritical monsters are taking more freedoms away from us.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2003

>I am calling on Canada and France to liberate us from these monsters...

You've got to be kidding. The US has FAR more rights when it comes to Freedom of Speech than Canada.

Do you want to outlaw all "hate speech"? Want to outlaw importing anything deemed obscene (not by you, but by your judge)?

Then follow Canada.

Otherwise, just shop somewhere else and be done with it.

BTW: It isn't just christian fundamentalists that are against things like Maxim. Many middle-eastern religions (and mostly _not_ fundamentalists) find it offensive also.
posted by shepd at 11:11 AM on May 6, 2003

What exactly is hypocritical about right-wing Christian fundamentalists? They tell you right up front that they are the chosen few and that anyone else can and will go to hell, literally, so what makes them hypocrites? Sounds to me like the hypocritical monsters are those that preach tolerance and open-mindedness and then turn around and call someone's religious beliefs monstrous.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:14 AM on May 6, 2003

Oh Brother. What has happened to METAFILTER. ScreedFilter anyone?
WalMart is privately owned and they can sell whatever the heck they want to sell. Here's a suggestion take your narrow minded hate talk to another store to buy your low-key boobie mags.
This post needs to be deleted. This kind of nonsense is ruining metafilter. Oh no! That might make me one of the "hypocritical monsters {that}are taking more freedoms away from us"
free the boobies!
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 11:15 AM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart is public owned? Maybe the public does have a say.

Actually, the shareholders own the company, and they (at least in theory) ultimately control it. I seem to recall that Wal-Mart, although public, is still controlled by the Walton family, because they own a majority of the outstanding shares. I'm not sure on this, though.

In any event, I don't need to be liberated from Wal-Mart. No one is forced to shop there, and everyone is free to take their business elsewhere if they are angry that they can no longer purchase their "racy" magazines there.
posted by Durwood at 11:17 AM on May 6, 2003

Kind of a funny post, if you think about it, since the typical MeFier neither goes to church (at least the evangelical variety) nor buys beer-and-babe mags at WalMart.

I personally get more upset when preachers send out newsletters to their flock listing books they should complain about to the schools and they do. so our suburban youth are deprived of lots of good literature but I'm departing from the subject at hand so I'll just shut up now.
posted by kozad at 11:19 AM on May 6, 2003

As long as Wal-Mart keeps selling the diapers I like, I'll keep going there to buy them.

I only wish I had an SUV in which to drive there.
posted by padraigin at 11:20 AM on May 6, 2003

This thread is so over the top it has a Sammy Hagar theme song...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:20 AM on May 6, 2003

Well, in defense of Walmart they are a private company, it is their right to sell whatever they like. In many ways, Walmart refusing to sell Maxim (which I find ridiculous, but not offensive) is really no different than the small mom and pop video store I grew up with that refused to carry porn. If you own a business, its your right to sell what you want.

I don't know which would be more disturbing: living in a country where Walmart and its shoppers find mild fare like the above so disturbing they refuse to carry it, or living in a country where the government would mandate that Walmart had to carry said magazines (presumably the only solution to this problem.)
posted by pjgulliver at 11:21 AM on May 6, 2003

I can't drive 55?
posted by SentientAI at 11:22 AM on May 6, 2003

wal-mart - ensuring the demise of mom and pop main street businesses across america.
boobie mags - ensuring the resurrection of mom and pop main street businesses across america.
posted by quonsar at 11:22 AM on May 6, 2003

No one is forced to shop there

What about people in small towns whose business district has been destroyed by competition from Wal-Mart and who now have to drive an hour out of their way for an alternative? For many small towns Wal-Mart is a defacto monopoly.
posted by TedW at 11:22 AM on May 6, 2003

oh...good. On preview, there is still sanity in metafilter.
posted by pjgulliver at 11:23 AM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart is still a business. If you want Maxim/FFM/Playboy, I'm sure you can deny Wal-Mart your business and find them elsewhere. Not selling a product they don't like isn't denying you your "freedom."

I don't know. Walmart's strategy is to build a store in the middle of a bunch of small communities that have no large shopping centers. They lower prices initially and small local businesses can't compete. Once people stop going to the other stores, the other stores close and Walmart is essentially a local monopoly. The only place you can buy things with any level of convenience. I've seen it happen twice, just personally.

So if they're the only game in town, don't they have some responsibility to the community to provide the same selection as the stores they've driven out of business? Aren't they sort of lying to their customers if they trick them into not going to any other stores, then once they have total control of a market, getting rid of many of the things that made those customers switch to their store in the first place?

Or am I just being naive? Could go either way.
posted by Hildago at 11:24 AM on May 6, 2003

Maybe I'm being naive, but surely one could go pick up a boobie mag at a local gas station... or something... from my trips to the states, I've seen plenty of other stores and such... and if means so much to a person, they could always subscribe, which would be cheaper to?

Oh, just hope those CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS don't go rooting through your mail!
posted by FiveFrozenFish at 11:26 AM on May 6, 2003

"Who is behind this censorship ? I can think of only one group = CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS"

Funny, I thought the J-E-W-S controlled all the media.

Maybe you need to upgrade your hat to Reynolds Wrap, bureaustyle.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:27 AM on May 6, 2003

Obviously, Wal-Mart has every right to not sell whatever the feel like not selling. It is a damn shame, though, that a single entity gets so huge that its arbitrary moralistic decisions create a de facto standard for much of the country. Why is Maxim evil but guns are a-ok?
posted by callmejay at 11:29 AM on May 6, 2003

Wal Mart sells moral values as well.
Its like asking why Disney doesnt allow free reign in creative depts or make rated R movies. Mass america's families feel comfort (as do WalMart execs) knowing that they can shop for their clothes and their knicknacks while their kids are safe and protected running about in the music/movie isles. Little Timmy asking what Sexy Lingerie is, discourages mommy from shopping there.
posted by stratcog at 11:29 AM on May 6, 2003

I wonder if they'll take out Cosmo too...it's just as racy.
posted by agregoli at 11:30 AM on May 6, 2003

Guns are OK, because kids can't pick them up on the shelf and flip through them.
posted by stratcog at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2003

Target, here I come.
posted by ajpresto at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2003

FHM, etc. I've heard classified as "magazines for people who don't want to be seen buying porn." I thought that summed it up pretty well.

As far as one's freedom to purchase: Well, if you want to buy the magazine, there's about 10 buhzillion other venues which remain available. So the only freedom you've lost is the ability to purchase these mags at Wal-Mart. There's a lot of things you can't buy at Wal Mart (a decent shirt, for example) so I don't see why these mags are any more of a deal. (You can't buy a CD with cusswords on it at 'Mart, either.)

Plus I'm pretty sure "Freedom to buy stuff at Wal Mart" wasn't written into the Constitution.

Hypocritical? I'll grant there's hypocrites in this world, but I don't think it's limited to Xtian Fundys.

This just seems like a pretty small issue to get wrapped up about.
posted by Elvis at 11:37 AM on May 6, 2003

As a former radical Christian fundamentalist, all I'll say is that they more than deserve every bit of scorn they get.
posted by PsychoKick at 11:38 AM on May 6, 2003

Two posts with the word naive in them within two minutes? Spooky . . . .

Metafilter: Maybe I'm being naive
posted by tr33hggr at 11:39 AM on May 6, 2003

WalMart imposes a decidedly midwestern value system on a lot of small towns all over the world. They wield enormous economic power with their purchasing decisions. Without WalMart, would "clean" versions of music and videos even be produced?
posted by letitrain at 11:41 AM on May 6, 2003

I think you're all missing the point. Who buys magazines at the store? If they're not worth having a subscription, they're certainly not worth paying the cover price.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:43 AM on May 6, 2003

Do you want to outlaw all "hate speech"?

No, because hate speech is a great indicator of assholism. I say let 'em shoot their mouths off, then kick their asses ; )
posted by Shane at 11:46 AM on May 6, 2003

Freedom is such an illusion. Wal-Mart has the freedom to sell anything they want to their clientele, provided their clientele doesn't raise hell and threaten to boycott them. Now logically, if someone claims to boycott, it means they are not a patron and therefore Wal-Mart shouldn't have to cater to their whims, unless they wanted said clientele and who would? Bureaustyle may blame Christian Fundamentalists, but whenever I refuse to buy music from a big RIAA-supporting record label, am I not restricting the freedoms of the RIAA to screw their artists and audiences?

We each have a right to speak. We each also have a right to listen. Giving credence to "CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS" also gives them power. I choose not to blame them for anything. It's much more complicated than bureaustyle's blanket (and religiously bigoted) statement.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2003

Uh, sorry but Wal-Mart does way more offensive stuff than banning lad mags. And, btw, I'm fairly sure the good god-fearing folks haven't been successful in banning said mags from 7-11.
posted by photoslob at 11:51 AM on May 6, 2003

monju_bosatsu, your point is well taken. Let me enlighten you to Wal-Mart, they were founded in Arkansas. Nothing wrong with Arkansas but have found when living in the south/bible-belt that these things happen. Money is not the factor sometimes and some people won't even take your money.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:54 AM on May 6, 2003

In 1996, Neil Strauss, from the NYT, had a good article about Walmart and Blockbuster's acts of censorship.
posted by toddst at 11:56 AM on May 6, 2003

Actually, this is one situation that may blow up in Wal-Mart's face. Maxim, FHM and Stuff are all utter garbage: unintelligible sexist drivel for the frat boy crowd. Perfect fodder for young Christian minds hell-bent on lusting over a little poontang without going all the way with a Hustler or Spice TV subscription.

Wal-Mart has, in a few simple words, shot their wad into the Holy Grail of Americana: the right to pornography -- not the hardcore stuff, but the kind of safe, touched up, shamelessly glamourized porn that masquerades as scandalous. There is no way that any redblooded Puritanical mind will accept this. And if Wal-Mart clamps down on reality TV after this, then they're seriously underestimating the voyeuristic tendencies (and subsequent profit base) of the Great American Heartland.
posted by ed at 12:02 PM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart won't sell magazines that show female body parts in a provocative manner. They also don't want to promote women dressed in the company uniform to positions of responsibility.

I have never been in a Wal-Mart and I plan to continue avoiding it.

I prefer Target, too.
posted by Red58 at 12:09 PM on May 6, 2003

I am calling on Canada and France to liberate us from these monsters...

Look I hate Christian fundamentalists, but I won't rely on Canada to protect any speach considering Canada wants to censer the bible and has a history of censoring sexual material. Oh, Canada...land of free indeed.

The solution? Don't shop at Wal-Mart. If they want to ban this kind of stuff, fine that’s there right and it appeals to some people, but it does not appeal to me. Frankly, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Wal-Mart, this is one more reason why I'd never set foot in one.
posted by Bag Man at 12:11 PM on May 6, 2003

Surely WalMart (and the fundamentalists behind it) can censor the products it carries. It sucks, but it's well within legal limits. But when you look at the big picture, WalMart is a global force, controlling many facets of the American (and global) life. There's no problem with cencorship on a tiny scale, but when it's supersized into a WalMart sized web of control, things could get kinda scary in an Orwellian way.
posted by freakystyley at 12:13 PM on May 6, 2003

Why are Christian Fundys hypocritical ?
(and yes there is plenty of hypocrisy in the world, but not all of it effects our lives)

Christianity has been hypocritical since day 1, though colonization and slavery they have enforced Christianity on the big part of the planet ( I am not saying other religions haven't), by denying rights for gays and lesbians and the right for abortion.
hypocrisy is when you call other religions evil but don't mind if you are evil to your fellow gays and lesbians in USA !
Isn't gun more evil than naked boobs ????

I don't mind that they can shop for poster of Jesus and a gun at the nearest store but they do mind me shopping for Maxim (yes it's a garbage magazine, but freedom of expression is not something you can garbage) magazine.

also it wasn't Wal-Mart that decided to stop selling music and Maxim magazine, it was the Christian group who pressured Wal-Mart to do it, so if they can do it to Wal-Mart, the next store will be their next target and that is when they take away your freedom.

You should ask yourself:
Can music and naked boobs do more damage than Christian magazines prohibiting masturbation?
posted by bureaustyle at 12:25 PM on May 6, 2003

Who is behind this censorship ? I can think of only one group = CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS

The fact that you are unable to think of more than one group does not a watertight case make.

BTW, mentally substitute the word "Jewish" (or "Muslim," or "Buddhist," or "Taoist") for the world "Christian" in your screed and ask yourself if you still would have categorically denounced every adherent to that creed as a "monster' (twice) in a front page post. Alas, your inability to think of any group other than Christian Fundamentalists may make this thought experiment impossible.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:29 PM on May 6, 2003

What about people in small towns whose business district has been destroyed by competition from Wal-Mart and who now have to drive an hour out of their way for an alternative? For many small towns Wal-Mart is a defacto monopoly.

<sarcasm>And people in those poor backwards rural towns don't have internet service either, so they can't buy the magazines online.</sarcasm>
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2003

for what it's worth, wal-mart doesn't sell guns in california anymore. I'm not sure about the rest of the country.
posted by akmonday at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2003

Wal-Mart is a business alright. But between Wal-Mart, Kroger and Target, three companies control most of the checkout counters in America. When a group of people imposes their demographic moral values on the majority of the American shopping public, they lower (or raise, depending on your PoV) the bar of the collective moral values. I.e. if 80% of Americans don't even see a bikini-clad woman on a magazine cover within say 5 years, what's next? short-skirts? and after that? burqas?

Having said that, I didn't like the tone of the FPP. CFs have the right to pressure any company to do what they want, and any company has the right to sell whatever they please. However, I do think that the rest of the US public should learn to raise an opposite but equally strong voice for their moral values, even if those mean defending pulp mags like Maxim.
posted by costas at 12:38 PM on May 6, 2003

I agree that a company has a right not to sell something if it wants - but it does get problematic when said company is such an albatross that its slightest twitch has a big impact. However, I can't see that government intervention is called for in this case. If you want Maxim, go where you can get it. If you live in a very small town in the shadow of a Wal-Mart, subscribe to it. I think it's more a case of our having just one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart - throw it on the pile with the dozens of others.

But who knows - in this case it may be a case of "They took Maxim off the shelves and I did not protest because I thought Maxim was a piece of shit. They took Cosmo off the shelves and I did not protest because I thought Cosmo was stupid crap. Then they took [enter name of magazine you read here] off the shelves and none of the TV Guide or O magazine readers bothered to speak up for me. So I had to shop elsewhere."

On preview: Right on, shadowkeeper. Bureaustyle has some bee up his ass and I can't be bothered to help him take it out. Glad you did, though.
posted by orange swan at 12:40 PM on May 6, 2003

if 80% of Americans don't even see a bikini-clad woman on a magazine cover within say 5 years, what's next? short-skirts? and after that? burqas?

thank you very much costas, that was exactly why I created this post

Is it possible that Christian Puritans will take over the leadership of this country one day ?
posted by bureaustyle at 12:49 PM on May 6, 2003

Look, you see one pair of boobs, you've seen em all. I used to go to art school, so I know.

I hate Wal-mart (I call it Hellmart) but think they are well within their rights to sell what they wish. Go find Barnes & Noble if you really have to have the sort of publication that portrays women as sex objects. I don't have much respect for men who like these sorts of mags.

And before you all go all Agent Orange on me, hey, the Dixie Chicks can say what they like, and so can I. :-p
posted by konolia at 12:52 PM on May 6, 2003

Poorly framed post. I abhor walmart as much as the next guy who has other shopping options. But can we just skip this and move on to a more relevant discussion?
posted by quadog at 12:54 PM on May 6, 2003

You've got to be kidding. The US has FAR more rights when it comes to Freedom of Speech than Canada.

The State Department report on global terrorism for 2002 suggests that while Canada has been helpful in the fight against terrorism, it doesn't spend enough on policing and places too much emphasis on civil liberties.
posted by moonbiter at 12:58 PM on May 6, 2003

Is it possible that Christian Puritans will take over the leadership of this country one day ?

No.

You're not being serious, are you?
posted by samsara at 1:02 PM on May 6, 2003

you see one pair of boobs, you've seen em all.

I must protest this thread on the basis of this comment alone. For the love of casabas, there are big ones, small ones; silicone ones, natural ones; pointed ones, round ones. One boob will never be the same as the other in a single pair; nor one pair homogeneous to another. Some even have cute little moles. There are endless possibilities in nipple texture and circumference. Even when hardened, the feel and taste within one's mouth will differ from lady to lady (or from man to man, if you're into the whole 300 pound giganto mammary gland thing). And when you factor in beautiful skin tone, a smile, and how the breasts in question are only one small component of the grandiloquent, far superior gender who walks this earth known as women, you're dealing with something with more fascinating variables than a Euclidian geometric equation.

Fie! Fie! Konolia! How can any reasonable man tire of breasts? Or souls? Or conversation? Or legs? Or any other combination of anatomical and emotional aspects within the beauty of a lady?

Take this thread to Metatalk. I am convinced that MeFites aren't lusting in the elaborate, passionate manner that I had hoped. Before it's too late!
posted by ed at 1:06 PM on May 6, 2003

ed, you've made my week and it's only Tuesday.
posted by letitrain at 1:15 PM on May 6, 2003

Its like asking why Disney doesnt allow free reign in creative depts or make rated R movies.

stratcog, if you think disney isn't the nations number one producer of "R" rated movies, you've had your head in the sand somewhere for 20 years. son, you need to get a clue or the corporate sharks running this country are going to have you for lunch!
it's the wholly-owned subsidiaries, stupid.
posted by quonsar at 1:19 PM on May 6, 2003

ed, I didn't think there was a snowball's chance of someone actually redeeming this worthless FPP, but you showed up and represented. Good show, my friend, good show.
posted by dhoyt at 1:19 PM on May 6, 2003

Most idiotic thread ever. I'm speechless.
posted by oissubke at 1:21 PM on May 6, 2003

Fie! Fie! Konolia! How can any reasonable man tire of breasts?

Silly rabbit, tits are for kids. An ass man can tire of them.

Really breasts are nice, but it's the ass that's the true universal sex object. This is what I call my Unified Butt Theory.
posted by jonmc at 1:39 PM on May 6, 2003

Self link!

Doesn't make him wrong, though. Woooo, ass!
posted by UncleFes at 1:58 PM on May 6, 2003

Could people stop saying "XFilter", where X is the topic being discussed please?

Cheers.

P.S. This post is stupid.
posted by ed\26h at 2:17 PM on May 6, 2003

You mean I'm going to have to start relying on my own charms and wiles to bed those straight boys frustrated with their inability to get a girlfriend like those hyperunattainable women portrayed in the magazines in question? Dammit.

Oh, wait, I've still got Cosmo telling women to say "no" all the time. I'm in the clear. Whew. I'm still not a recruiter.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:22 PM on May 6, 2003

You should ask yourself:
Can music and naked boobs do more damage than Christian magazines prohibiting masturbation?

Huh? Does /music/sex damage or does not allowing sex damage? bureaustyle, you left me to think; Do you need a Maxim to whack off with so you won't damage yourself?
posted by thomcatspike at 2:25 PM on May 6, 2003

The funny thing about CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS is that there's nothing fundamentally Christian about them. If they were truly fundamentalis Christians, they'd all be living in communes and spending the whole day praying.

The people who do things like ban naughty magazines from places are more aptly labeled "moralists." They may also be so-called fundamentalist Christians but moralization is a cultural force, not a religious one.

I'm not saying there's any connection, but historically the most perverse and ubiquitous pornography typically coincides with times of high moralism. See: Victorian England, modern-day Japan.
posted by vraxoin at 2:26 PM on May 6, 2003

Just a few observations:

First, bureaustyle's post is over the top, immature and offensive to the good intellect of most MeFi readers. This is a discussion worthy topic, but laying blame with Christian Fundies in the opening paragraph is something that should have been left to a more eloquent poster further down the thread.

Second, Wal-Mart prides itself on creating a "family" (read: Christian, Conservative, White, SUV-drivers, NASCAR fans, whatever...) environment where people can pick up their Tom Clancy wank novels and fishing line. Parents know that their teen kids can meander though the music isle and find only sanitized versions of top-40 crap... and they like that.

They have a guy in a wheel chair to greet you on your way in and a little ole lady checking your bags at the door on the way out... to me it's creepy, but I imagine it gives other shoppers some sort of warm fuzzy. Everything within and around Wal Mart is designed to appeal to the vast white underbelly of thoughtless consumers. It's why I can't stand to shop there and avoid it at all costs...

Third, these magazines in question are crap.

I used to live with a roommate who would keep the latest issue of Maxim on the back of the john - and I swear I could read it from cover to cover and not absorb any of it. Later, I figured out this was because the magazine is inanely shallow - showcasing the schism of frat-boy life style wrapped up in an acceptable yet "racy" format. I say, good riddance.
posted by wfrgms at 2:39 PM on May 6, 2003

What about people in small towns whose business district has been destroyed by competition from Wal-Mart and who now have to drive an hour out of their way for an alternative?

It is the people who choose where to shop based on the lowest price that destroy. Blaiming this destruction on corporations is denial.
posted by jsonic at 3:38 PM on May 6, 2003

Take this to MetaJesus.
posted by PrinceValium at 3:40 PM on May 6, 2003

Uhm, I thought we had all agreed that Wal-Mart was an evil corporate monster bent on ecological and economical destruction?

Who cares if they no longer sell meathead skin mags?
posted by cinderful at 3:44 PM on May 6, 2003

I find it weird that our culture has defined breasts, and especially nipples, as objects that are for adults only and harmful to children.

Also, someone said earlier:
"[...]since the typical MeFier neither goes to church (at least the evangelical variety) nor buys beer-and-babe mags at WalMart."

Who the hell made you supreme arbitrator of what the "typical MeFier" does or doesn't?
Is there even such a thing as a "typical MeFier"?
posted by spazzm at 6:07 PM on May 6, 2003

Holy crap, moonbiter, that's a very interesting link!

Thanks for posting it! It beats this thread's links 10x!

However, I think they're talking about us allowing more civil liberties outside freedom of speech (gay marriage, the right for muslims to be treated as equals, right to privacy, decriminalizing marijuana, etc, etc) because I lie not about the hate/obscenity laws. :-)

That's the secret! When a thread sucks, post a better link in a comment.

Oh, and Shane, you're right on.
posted by shepd at 7:09 PM on May 6, 2003

Completely off topic, but since this is a stupid FPP anyway, I'll indulge myself.

In 1983, when Michael Eisner and Frank Wells took over Disney, it was decided that the live action unit needed a more adult reputation and Disney's first R-rated movie was given the greenlight. That movie was Down and Out in Beverly Hills.

Since then, the Touchstone label has produced another 64 R-rated movies, including such notables as Billy Bathgate, Scorcese's Bringing Out the Dead, Cocktail, Con Air, Ed Wood, Face/Off, High Fidelity, Ransom, Starship Troopers, and Summer of Sam (perhaps including Disney's first orgy?),

Buena Vista Pictures has another four titles.

Of course, Miramax has another 94 titles since their purchase by Disney in 1993 (of which, many are simply distribution deals). Dimension Films has another 34 titles, mostly in the horror genre (Children of the Corn IV, anyone?).

Since 1986, when Disney finally broke through to R films, they have produced or distributed at least 193 R-rated films. In that time (1986 through 2004), IMDb lists 5,397 films with R ratings.

So, about 3.5% of R rated movies made since 1986 have been made by Disney.
posted by obfusciatrist at 8:03 PM on May 6, 2003

Jeez, Wal-Mart pulling magazines is old news.
posted by ?! at 8:44 PM on May 6, 2003

Let's be honest here, folks. Wal-Mart is in business to make money, just like every other retailer out there. Without a serious, nationwide boycott threat or other protest activity (which hasn't existed as far as I've seen, in person or in any news reports) a move like this would never have been made unless the company felt that it would be viewed positively by a significant number of customers and, more importantly, could be undertaken without a significant loss of revenue. If Maxim, FHM and Stuff were flying off of the shelves, selling out on the day of release and being demanded by customers in high dudgeon at the fact that there were none to be had, there's no way that this decision would have been made.

But let's face it, Maxim -- leader of the pack of that particular genre -- says that only 3% of it's circulation, maybe 75,000 issues, are sold at Wal-Mart. So the largest retailer in the country loses maybe, for all 3 mags, a half million of monthly revenue -- not even profit, just revenue. It's highly unlikely that 75,000 people are going to stop shopping Wal-Mart because of this decision, and even if they are, given the steady growth of corporate profits (even as other retailers are reeling in this abysmal economy) it wouldn't take long to reverse the effects of such a loss. Wal-Mart and its stockholders aren't likely to notice one iota of negative effect from this decision, and that's all that matters from a corporate perspective, and really (on a matter such as this) all that should.
posted by Dreama at 9:04 PM on May 6, 2003

I think the only boob in this 'Filter is bureaustyle.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:40 PM on May 6, 2003

Once I thought these were crap magazines. Now I see the light. FHM brings us Ally.

http://www.alysonhannigancorner.com/discus/messages/4/2333a.jpg

http://www.alysonhannigancorner.com/discus/messages/4/2336a.jpg

http://www.alysonhannigancorner.com/discus/messages/4/2339a.jpg

http://praxton10.webcindario.com/alyson4.jpg
posted by bargle at 9:48 PM on May 6, 2003

And yes, there is a reason I didn't make those links. You get redirected if someone tries to link to a picture on the ahc site, so just copy/paste the addy into your browser.
posted by bargle at 9:49 PM on May 6, 2003

Where's her flute?

Ooh, nevermind.
posted by NortonDC at 5:36 AM on May 7, 2003

The funny thing about CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS is that there's nothing fundamentally Christian about them. If they were truly fundamentalist Christians, they'd all be living in communes and spending the whole day praying.

Says who? That is a matter of your opinion vs. theirs. They might feel that the monastic life is fundamentally non-Christian. If you want to be more understanding and work with people rather than being divisive, you can't let your opinion and upbringing cloud your view of their beliefs.

Later, I figured out this was because the magazine is inanely shallow - showcasing the schism of frat-boy life style wrapped up in an acceptable yet "racy" format.

Later? What took you so long?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:08 AM on May 7, 2003

Why are all of the good threads posted when I'm not at work? :(

One argument I did not see in this thread is that with giant retailers like Walmart refusing to sell certain products, they are likely to affect the content of said products in the future.

What I mean is that Maxim might say to itself, "Oh we need to include fewer pics of women so that Walmart will sell our mag." So now, instead of me thumbing my nose to Walmart and just buying my racy Maxim at the gas station, I now have a watered down Maxim, all thanks to those damned CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS!!

:)
posted by eas98 at 7:24 AM on May 7, 2003

watered down Maxim

*boggle*
posted by NortonDC at 8:08 AM on May 7, 2003

watered down Maxim

But Wal-Mart already sells People.
posted by obfusciatrist at 9:12 AM on May 7, 2003

I know this is a stupid FPP and nobody will be reading day-old comments anyway, but I just had to chime in. I doubt anyone will agree with me.

I thank Wal-Mart for doing this.

I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist. I'm not Christian at all. I'm not regligous. I don't have an agenda. I do have a young son, and I do get tired of him being bombarded with imagery depicting women as shallow sex objects and headlines telling him how to really spice up his sex life. I've not been in a Wal*Mart for a while so I can't say if they already do, but I hope they also get rid of the trashy women's magazines and tabloids too, because they're just as bad.

I should point out that I'm not of the "SHIELD THE CHILDREN FROM EVERYTHING AND THEY'LL BE OK!" mentality. I'd just like to be able to talk to my son about these issues at length at home, not when we're trying to buy groceries.
posted by SiW at 10:08 AM on May 7, 2003

Um, I hope you don't have a TV. Or a nintendo. Or a newspaper.

I hope your son has no friends, no curiosities, or for that matter, eyes.

The reality is that men find women sexy. We don't feel that way because of magazines.

The problem is that women apparently don't like the fact that they are women.

I suggest you take yourself and your son to an Islamic country to live, and you can bring him up 'right'.
posted by eas98 at 11:18 AM on May 7, 2003

Eas98: What a load of rotten old shit that was.
posted by ed\26h at 12:03 PM on May 7, 2003

A Maxim without titties wouldn't exist. That's pretty much their niche, and it will continue being their niche whether you can buy them at Wal Mart or not.

I think Wal Mart's on its way out, anyway, if retail follows the same sort of trends that fast food has been...
posted by dagnyscott at 12:47 PM on May 7, 2003

Dunno, dagny...fast food's alive and well around here, damn betcha...
posted by alumshubby at 2:35 PM on May 7, 2003

eas98-I'd like to think women could be known as people instead of simply attractive body parts.
posted by konolia at 4:25 PM on May 7, 2003