Today I was fortunate to take part in a fun experience for a good cause. A friend of mine asked me to be a model for Fusion magazine, Kent State's magazine for the LGBT community. The article I was to illustrate (and others partaking in the fun) spoke about the terms that are associated to the culture. I was made to illustrate "seafood," which is actually a term used to describe a homosexual sailor. Another term I was unfamiliar with was "breeder." This term is used to describe heterosexual individuals. Another was the term "gaby," which is a baby adopted by a same-sex couple.
As I was getting hair and make-up done, I thought about the progressiveness that today's writers are entitled to. Forty or fifty years ago, a magazine who's target audience would be the LGBT community would be unheard of. There might even be difficulty searching for an article about homosexuality all together. Saying this, I'm sure that there are still writers out there who are censored by certain individuals or topics. But how lucky this generation is! We have the ability to freely express and write about whatever we want, geared towards whoever we want. The First Amendment gives us that freedom, as does our culture and our community.
In today's terms, would censoring an article about lesbian, gay, homosexual or transgendered people be ethical? Would discontinuing an entire magazine because of it's target audience be ethical? Major magazines like Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair and People splash "sex" around their covers on a monthly basis (in word and picture form). What is so different?
If you are unaware of Fusion, click the title link, it will take you to their website.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It was a fun experience, and it's very liberating to be a part of something that people discouraged in the past and still do in today's society. Again, we really appreciate your participation.
Thanks,
RE
I, like most Americans, would argue that all censorship is unethical and violates First Amendment freedom, except when it relates to an issue I feel strongly about. Case in point, Amazon's apparent withdrawal from sale of "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct."
It's a good thing I don't work for the company because I recognize that I cannot be objective about this particular issue. Young children could be harmed by the sale of this book through the number one book selling web site. Yet, there are conflicting values from the book seller's (Amazon) point of view. It is right to protect First Amendment freedom. It is right to protect children from potential harm. If at the decision making table, I would make my feelings known (transparency) and argue for the book's withdrawal. I strongly believe that Amazon did the right thing.
Post a Comment