Marge Simpson: The Gateway Porn

And then you'll be craving Olive Oyl

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. The American Family Association is upset that Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy. The AFA has gone beyond self-parody now.

They’ve decided to target 7-11 in this campaign. That’s a big easy target that can stand in for Playboy itself. The fundies can’t very well boycott Playboy and expect it to have any effect. They already aren’t buying Playboy.

Here’s what they write in their press release:

“Most American dads know the dangers that porn represents to young males.…”

That would depend on the material and the age of the boy. However, that is completely irrelevant, since Playboy isn’t porn.

“…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,” said Randy Sharp, AFA Special Projects Director.

What’s really damaging to young boys is that hot dog and Slurpee and all that other junk food that 7-11 is peddling to kids.

“The cover will create the kind of curiosity that can easily lead them into an addictive porn habit,” he said.

Like I said. Waaaaayyyyyyyyyy beyond self-parody.

13 Responses to “Marge Simpson: The Gateway Porn”

  1. Arkonbey Says:

    The three things that are funny to me about this area

    1) how far behind the times Playboy is. I’d be willing to bet that there are a dozen Deviant Art sites dedicated solely to naked Marge Simpsons

    2) Playboy is their gold standard for damaging porn? The AFA is also behind the times. If a kid was looking at the tame and comparatively tasteful Playboy rather than finding some nasty stuff on the internet, they should be happy. (Maybe they’re really afraid the kids will read the articles?)

  2. Lindsay Says:

    I haven’t exactly been in a 7-11…much less a convenience store in a long time. But if I remember right, isn’t there dark plastic cover over the magazine to begin with?

  3. Syldoran Says:

    Even if a kid sees the cover, I doubt he’s immediately gonna be turned to porn…

    I mean, “Daddy, why was Marge Simpson naked on a magazine?” might be an odd question when they get home, if they even ask, but it just seems like something kids would giggle at a lot. Or, if they’re modest like me at that age, turn away from while screaming blasphemes that they saw what they did while in no manner blaming the establishment.

  4. Luke Says:

    7-11 food…

    *shudder*

  5. Sanity Says:

    The upsetting thing is that playboy is so desperate for cover models they’ll result to hentai :p

  6. KennyCelican Says:

    Why is that upsetting again?

    Also, I’m a dad, I’ve got boys, I’m American. Porn is a heck of a lot more effective as an educational tool than most of the actual educational media. For one thing, the educational media is SO abstract that it winds up being mostly useless for the equipment you have, and completely useless for understanding the equipment you don’t.

    Now, Playboy is neither real porn nor pictures of real women, but I can at least point and say ‘ok, boys, if you see a woman who looks like THAT, she paid good money to do so; compliment her on her dedication to her appearance.

    OK, that doesn’t scan too well, but I’m way too tired to make sense.

  7. Ron Britton Says:

    Lindsay:

    Most 7-11s haven’t sold Playboy since 1986. That was an early fundie victory. Maybe they view this as 7-11 testing the waters to see if they can get away with selling them again.

    KennyCelican:

    Playboy is neither real porn nor pictures of real women

    You’re right. Marge Simpson may be their first cartoon model, but she isn’t their first artist’s rendering.

    Arkonbey:

    I previously posted this image. It’s not Marge, but I found it when I was looking for Family Guy porn to illustrate an article about cell phones. Considering how much FG porn there is, I’m sure there is lots of Simpsons porn (for those with jaundice fetishes).

    Meg and Bart

  8. TB Tabby Says:

    It’s not that surprising to me, actually. I’m not one of the people who get turned on by Marge, but a lot of people do. It was even referenced on the show, when Nelson called her “surprisingly hot.”

  9. FallenMorgan Says:

    Exactly…Playboy isn’t porn. It’s ads, dirty jokes, interviews, and articles with the occasional naked girl.

  10. luna600 Says:

    I’m a mom and to be honest I would rather my child pick up an issue of playboy then an issue of hustler magazine. IMO Playboys pictures are done tastfully to me its art the way the girls are possing. Think about this you take your child to an art gallery and you will find tasteful pictures of naked woman and men on the walls so now the question is do you not take your child to the gallery anymore becuase there are naked paintings and skulptures or do you tell them that this is art?

  11. Jeff Eyges Says:

    The definition (at the cognitive level at which fundies are operating) is this: If you enjoy looking at the pictures, it’s porn. If you have to be dragged to see them, it’s art.

  12. Jeff Eyges Says:

    No, scrap that. From their perspective, it’s all porn.

  13. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I did a quick google image search and as far as I can tell, it gets no more revealing than what Ron has posted. A (maybe?) naked Marge with a gigantic playboy bunny logo in front of her. I’m pretty sure in the actual show they’ve had Marge exposing more. (Maybe a flashback episode where she was in a bathing suit or something? I’m just guessing.)

    So what the fuck is the gripe here?! It’s an iconic pop culture female in an animated American television series on the cover of an ultra soft core porn rag that shows, on average, less skin than your average gossip magazine.

    Beyond parody? INDEED.