Okay, really AZ?
One of Jezebel’s readers sent the website this picture from a grocery store in Arizona, where someone (it’s not clear whether it was the store itself or a patron) took it upon themselves to censor Jessica Simpson’s Elle cover with a piece of cardboard. Apparently it’s been there for a week, so people are actually heeding the “Please Do Not Remove Cardboard” request. We still don’t know what the big deal is, and we wonder why they wouldn’t just take it off the shelves if they found the cover so offensive.
This whole uproar is one big question mark to me. Everyone has a different threshold when it comes to what offends, so it’s hard to hold it against those who have a problem with it — opinion is opinion. But for such a natural and beautiful thing to still be causing tongues to wag in a negative way is kind of crazy. Is a bare pregnant belly really so unacceptable? The amount of skin shown is not a far cry from most Victoria’s Secret commercials or catalogs, so I can’t help but think the pregnant part is the factor people are taking real issue with. And because pregnancy is something many, if not most, women experience at some point in their lives, wouldn’t there be more tolerance for a cover like this, based on that fact alone? Why is everyone running in the opposite direction at the mere site of it? (via Jezebel)
What do you Lovelies think — should people just get over it already or is this something that needs to be addressed and amended for future magazine covers?
guest
People should deff get over it already, not a big deal! Every woman has a gift of pregnancy ( or well maybe not for some but theres other means to get a baby) anyway it’s life. Its Natural. It’s where babies come from duh. Whoever did this cardboard stuff maybe shouldn’t be a parent! to be so disgusted with nude pregnant people? If its a guy then I say – sooner or later your going to have kids. And your going to have a pregnant wife or girlfriend so what your just not going to look at her? And woman- I honestly don’t think any woman would object since woman should know its the way of life and being pregnant should never be SHAMEFUL.
guest
It’s not because she was pregnant. It was because she was nude. Pregnant or not, she was nude. That was the issue.
guest
Does ANYONE notice that she doesn’t have a belly button … >_>
ranunculus / 3457 posts
What the fuck is wrong with AZ recently?
guest
Dear Arizona: What the fuck is wrong with you lately? Jesus Christ, seriously. I was thinking about moving to you because you have so much beautiful desert and awesome weather and the Grand Fricking Canyon, but really…really? Is it because of all the fricking old people that live there?
COME ON, ARIZONA. Pull your head out of your ass. Please do not become Mississippi or Alabama (no offense to people from those states, I’m from Iowa which is not prime livin’ either).
guest
“But for such a natural and beautiful thing to still be causing tongues to wag in a negative way is kind of crazy.”
Yep. And this goes for breastfeeding too. I do wonder, though, how many people will fight that this is crazy, and would still be against moms feeding their infants in public, because heaven freaking forbid you see a little boob or something. *gasps in horror*. But, yeah, you don’t even see as much skin as this magazine cover shows and people still get their panties in a twist like idiots.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. This country is full of freaking idiots.
guest
The grocery store down the street from me has a similar set up on this cover. It’s quite strange.
guest
@Megabyyte@xanga - It’s crazy, right? God forbid someone’s child will be standing in line at the store and say “Mommy, why is her tummy so big?” and then we would have to pollute their virgin minds with the knowledge that women have babies and feed them. Good Lord.
guest
@hot_metalhead@xanga - Exactly!!!! So stupid!
orchid / 151 posts
@xoxo_Live_Love_Laugh@xanga - yeah she does, its right there
guest
@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - haha exactly my thought! Seems to be getting a lot of bad publicity recently
sunflower / 499 posts
lmfao. the pose isn’t even original..demi moore did this too…did they censorish back then also?!?
sunflower / 393 posts
They show more provocative images in movies and television shows. I’m not nearly fussed by this cover. So what if a child sees it? It’s not as though her naughty bits are showing. Pregnancy happens. People need to get off their high horse and accept it.
guest
I’m uncertain that they were censoring her belly. She is after all entirely naked.
guest
I agree with Cambios.
guest
@xoxo_Live_Love_Laugh@xanga - she does…it’s right in the middle of her belly :-/
guest
If the woman was a non-pregnant model posed the same way, I still don’t think I would be too happy with my children (when I have them) seeing that everywhere.
guest
AZ is going insane
guest
It sounds like the grocery store made a judgement call and felt it was not appropriate. Someone might have complained. I’m not sure why Arizona as a whole is being targeted here. Is it because of the new anti-women laws currently going on? Anyway, I’m sure grocery stores owners scattered across the country have done similar things because they, their employees, or their customers don’t approve.
I don’t know, does being pregnant give it a pass for just being her completely nude? I can’t say I’d cover any children’s eyes myself, but I kinda see why one might take issue with it.
guest
It was probably some d-bag who doesn’t like “fat chicks”… I’ve met a few who make no exception for pregnancy. Scummy people.
orchid / 103 posts
It was the nude part that bothered me. I’m a girl who tries to dress modestly and THIS is not modest in anyway. I couldn’t be happier that she’s expecting, I just wish she didn’t have to show it this way. If she had gotten these pictures for her husband, that would be alright. I wouldn’t like this even if she wasn’t pregnant. I don’t like Victoria Secret ads or in general either, by the way. I dont like when any celebrity poses nude for anything, it’s just not my taste.
tulip / 16 posts
I don’t think it’s the whole ‘bare pregnant belly’ that the person intended to censor, but partially ‘exposed’ breasts.
sunflower / 264 posts
I don’t think it’s because she’s pregnant…I think it’s because she very, very naked.
guest
It is not just the belly showing. Many still have reservations about showing the naked human body; so this move shows respect for that side, while making it available to those who DO want to view it.
guest
Because women are oppressed in our society, and if they aren’t getting naked for just the sake of male entertainment, then it is considered “gross” or “needs to be censored”
Whoever thinks this needs to be censored in any way is scum. She’s covering her body parts, all you are seeing is the pregnant belly really. Get over yourselves and grow up, we all know you oogle the front covers of Playboy, Maxim, and all those other stupid magazines that throw naked chicks on their covers.
And it doesn’t surprise me that it’s in AZ.
guest
I work at a grocery store in MO, and someone (we’re still not sure who) took it upon themselves to put a thick black piece of plastic (and they zip-tied it to the metal frame) over the cover of the most recent Cosmopolitan magazine. Our managers were mind-blown, and the guy who stocks our magazines couldn’t help but laugh. The cover has Megan Fox on it in a nude dress, and if you look at it from a distance, it looks like she could be naked, but once you get close, you realize she isn’t. It’s ridiculous.
guest
A grocery store is a family place. Some people don’t want their kids to see a naked woman on a magazine. I totally get it. Grocery stores need to cover their asses, too.
guest
what’s the big deal…
guest
i am of the opinion that an image of a nude man or woman in public is ok as long as it is not sexual. it’s just naked parts, we’ve all got them, and there should be no need for shame or embarassment.