So, Catherine from If Ya'll Wanna Party Like We Do and I are launching a letter campaign. We have both written formal letters to Rolling Stone and we need you to give us some "signatures." How you can do this is contacting us at BritPornSucks@hotmail.com Give us your FULL name, your email address, age, and city/state. Only Catherine and I will be able to get into this email account, and your name and personal information WILL NOT be posted anywhere on this site or Catherine's site. We will send both of our letters, and attach all "signatures." I would also like you to spread this around like you would if Justin had a girlfriend. Put a link to our sites on message boards, give it to some friends, do whatever. Just get the word out. IF YOU HAVE A WEBSITE, NSYNC RELATED OR NOT, CLICK HERE. For Rolling Stone to take us seriously, we need some big numbers supporting us. There is strength in numbers, yo. God speed to you. If you have ANY questions, contact me through AOL IM at Snowangl76 or JCFoxyLady or contact Catherine at Sweets4654.
We want you to know EXACTLY what you are agreeing with. So below I will post both of our formal letters. Please take the time to read them before sending your "signature." Thanks!
To whom it may concern:
My name is Wendi [censored], I am 20 years old, and I reside in Minnesota. I am writing to you with regards to a recent feature entitled "Britney Spears: Inside the heart, mind, and bedroom of teen's new pop queen" included in your April 1999 issue. The way you depicted this 17 year old pop star was the most lewd and appalling thing I have ever witnessed.
I am not easily offended. I can accept the sexual suggestiveness. I can accept the virtual nudity. I can accept your marketing tactics. What I can not and will not accept is when all of the above involve a seventeen-year-old girl. She may posess adult-like features and she may be emotionally mature, but the fact still remains that she is seventeen years old.
The photographs were in very poor taste, and this is not typical of Rolling Stone. I have had a subscription with your magazine for a little over two years, and I have never been offended by the contents. I have seen many racy photoshoots, but nothing this vulgar. Setting aside the fact that she is a minor, let's examine the photographs. They all portrayed Britney in a sexually suggestive manner. She was wearing her underwear in two photographs, and not much more in the remaining three. In addition, two of the photos were revealing parts of her anatomy that was by no means appropriate. The first is the photograph where she was leaning over a little girl's bicycle in shorts revealing her bottom, and looking back at the camera in a way that rivals a Playboy centerfold. The second, is the photo of Britney with her brother and sister where she is raising her arms and exposing her lower breast. I understand that these two photos can take place by accident. The camera was at an unfortunate angle, or she reached or bent over a little too far, but the audacity of actually printing them is surreal to me.
I realize that your magazine is not a stranger to contoversy. It has undoubtedly been recognized for pushing the standard of what is politically correct and socially acceptable. I have no problem with that; in fact, that is the reason I subscribed. However, when you feature a photoshoot bordering on child pornography, I can not shrug it off and chalk it up to your reputation. Those pictures were blatant exploitation. I would have hoped that your magazine would realize the implications of printing an article as lascivious as this, and had enough tact to respond accordingly.
I know that you can do nothing to stop this because it has already occurred. I just hope that in the future you will use common sense and think about the repercussions before you feature child pornography in an otherwise respected magazine. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Wendi [censored]
To Whom it May Concern -
My name is Catherine [censored], and I am a first-year student at Wellesley College. I am writing in response to the April 1999 issue of your magazine with "teen sensation" Britney Spears on the cover. I am appalled and disgusted by the way that she was represented in your feature article.
Although Miss Spears is barely seventeen years old, she was displayed as a veritable sex object. The photographs of her were shocking and inappropriate. Miss Spears is a minor and these photographs should not have been included in your magazine. Her sexuality, which should not be a component of any kind of marketing, was paraded around to sell a magazine, and this is fundamentally wrong. I am also outraged by how blatant this representation is. The caption on the cover reads "Britney Spears: Inside the heart, mind, and bedroom of pop's new queen." Allow me to reiterate, Miss Spears is ONLY SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD. It is quite obvious to me the methods that you chose to use to peddle your magazine, and it disturbs me that you deemed this acceptable when it so clearly is not. There was no need to photograph Miss Spears scantily clad surrounded by childlike items that present a disconcerting connotation. Call it what you will, but this was child pornography, and no euphemism can refute that.
I realize that Rolling Stone magazine is not aimed towards younger readers. However, since Miss Spears is currently quite popular among young children and teenagers, both male and female, obviously many young people are going to see this article and these photographs. As a reputable music magazine, you should be, and most likely are, aware of this fact. This representation of Miss Spears is not only inappropriate for this audience because of its content, but it also gives children the wrong impression as to how a young girl should act to achieve success in the industry. These pictures send a very poor and irresponsible message to the readers of your magazine.
Just a few short months ago, the pop group 'N Sync was featured in your publication. However, the five young men that comprise this group were not depicted in a sexual way at all. They were fully clothed and the article was even accompanied by baby pictures! Pardon me for my lack of understanding as to why you subscribe to this double standard, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how you thought that this was acceptable.
I am disappointed that a respectable magazine such as yours would partake in this sort of exploitation. This is nothing against Miss Spears or Rolling Stone. I simply felt that this apparent error in judgment needed to be addressed. I will continue to read your magazine as long as an event like this is not repeated.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Catherine [censored]