From reports of martian births to celebrity weight check-ups, the grocery store checkout line has been a well… fascinating wellspring of knowledge over the years.
Even so, today’s foray past the cashier was a jaw dropper, in the worst way possible.
I had the misfortune of catching a glimpse of the newest issue of Women’s Health.
Titled the “Naked issue,” the magazine cover featured an entirely bare woman. A quick online search into the outrage revealed that the model was a 45-year-old woman, and therefore allowed to be naked. Or rather applauded for it.
Nevermind that the magazine was around knee level, in full view of the the wide-eyed, unsuspecting toddler.
Nevermind that the publication claims to forward women’s health, while contributing to the global epidemic of pornography. Nope, she was 45, and because she was 45, that meant she was styling. Naked and all.
But perhaps I’ve crossed my wires somewhere, and health is synonymous with baring it all? I’m not convinced, though, and I have to wonder how pornographic images align with women’s health.
I can see how they fuel the sex-trafficking industry, destroy relationships via unrealistic ideals, promote the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but what I fail to understand is the connection to health.
If health looks like encouraging men to hunt and rape children, I don’t think I want to be “healthy.”
No. I definitely don’t.
And I don’t think we should stand by and allow this magazine to stay on checkout stands, in full view of children.
So I advocate a boycott.
This isn’t the first time Women’s Health has published questionable material, and I think it’s time for the magazine to receive substantial negative feedback. Women don’t need to see their husbands gawking at checkout stand porn, and children do not need to be traumatized as Mom reaches for the checkbook.
This is not women’s health.