Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman

             I've been a regular subscriber to Cosmopolitan Magazine for quite some time now, and it is usually the magazine I look forward to most because even though it is not necessarily a fashion magazine, its fashion spreads are amazing. Lately however, Ive been confused and somewhat disappointed in some of the cover girl choices. When I received my June issue and saw Demi Lovato on the front of it I didn't know what to think. My initial reaction was "isn't this baby girl from Disney Channel??". And as I read on I also discovered she was barely 18.
            This isn't the first time this has happened either. At least 3 other times I can remember in the last year and a half Cosmo has featured barely legal cover girls who either still were or up until that time had been the poster girls for under 18 audiences. Granted, I started reading Cosmo when I was 17 and a senior in high school but as a result, I feel like I was definitely more primed to sexual experience, lets just say the magazine contributed to peaking my sexual appetite.

           Because I started babysitting again I am more aware of the presence and viewpoint of children. I think of the ten year old girl Sammari that I babysit who is still untainted and innocent but who also is so curious about everything; "what is Rihanna's S &M song talking about Brittany?" "What does S&M mean?". Especially because she eagerly looks through my magazine collection; still a lover of Demi Lovato I had to swiftly hide this issue from her. 
           Of course I'm completely aware that everyone must grow up at some point and the media obsessed world we live in, at times can be overtly sexual. However, I think there should be some type of tact and consideration when a star transforms from the PG sector to PG - 13 or for some R. Demi's cover of her proudly smiling surrounded by attention grabbing colors, with the words "SEX HE CRAVES" written across her stomach, prompts Britney Spears' "not that innocent" declaration. At the end of the day these stars yes are human but are also still role models and should be more aware of that fact. As well as the magazine industry because I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked to magazines as my guide through life as a teen.#ImJustSaying

Body Art

               The connoisseur  of magazines that I am (I have at least 6 subscriptions to different mags and have issues dating back to 01'), I've noticed a subtle trend starting to form on the glossy editorials. Within the last 3 years tattoos have started to be shown off in magazine spreads and fashion ads alike. I'm sure of course this has a direct correlation to the sudden increase of people getting tattoos in general, but the combination of the 3 art forms intrigues me.
              I am a full supporter of tattoos, way before I got my first one I've been obsessed with the sentimental symbols and pictures and paragraphs that people choose to get permanently drawn on their bodies. Of course I prefer to see them in moderation (sorry Wiz Khalifa I'm not gonna ink my whole body) but generally speaking I think a well done, symbolic tattoo is one of the highest forms of self expression and furthermore, body art.
              For a long time visible tattoos were taboo, and to a certain extent they still are. Its true that some tattoos in some careers heed inappropriate and guarantee you don't get the job. However, this  fad of body art being paired with an industry that already breaks all the rules, I personally feel is a collaborative creative effort of epic proportions. Photography is an art, fashion is an art, and tattoos are an art form, and all three rap upon using the human body as a canvas of creativity and expressionism. I think together they make amazing visuals and produce higher level of creativity and 'art'.

(Rih Rih's side by her boob & shoulder tat are visible)