The 'tutter' is not alone in their complacency. This kind of magazine is usually placed on the highest shelves, and is sometimes even covered. Some people argue that this is because they themselves don't wish to study the human anatomy as they choose between their Caravan Weekly or What to Knit Next magazines. Others are concerned for the poor little kiddywinks who "don't need to see such things yet."
Image sourced from here.
In all honesty, the younger of the children will have seen such sights themselves if they've been breast-fed. And the older 'children' have sex education, or the Internet to introduce themselves to the broad world of fried-eggs and melons.
But this isn't my problem with the fight against men's magazines. My problem is that I consider the whole argument to be totally perverse...
Which of the following would make a more harmful magazine cover for a child:
- The magazine with a naked lady on the front. Yes, we're told to wear clothes, but that is what a body looks like...we all have one.
- The magazine with captions such as "My Dad raped me then raped my child" and "I lost four stone in two weeks", alongside a picture of beaten up faces on the front?
Which cover could lead to the most awkward questions? Which magazine would parents rather their child pondered? I have no wish to see women with their puppies out to say Hello either. But at the end of the day, should I be unfortunate enough to catch a glimpse, all that I will have seen is a person. I don't want thoughts like those given from my fake caption rolling around in my head all day (and yes, I have seen that streamed across the cover of a magazine before).
If people wish to stop indecent magazine covers from being in full view, that is fine, but those same people need to consider the entire picture.