It's a pop culture issue and appropriate for GD. Of course it enflames the Gender Wars, which are always smoldering, for good reason unfortunately. But I have no problem with it being posted as a topic. I never agree with hiding things that are unpleasant to consider.
What some of the men around here need to realize is that, for a lot of women, such a photo on the cover of a magazine (any magazine that is about news, sports or meant for general non-porn consumption)--is demeaning and objectifying. Men are mistaken if they think women secretly like this--actually they don't. Not the smart ones anyway.
So it really isn't OK--it's using female enhanced "bootys in a row" to sell the magazine--hoping to create buzz. They look like marshmallow booty Peeps, stuck together ready and waiting for consumption. This is not about nudity or beautiful bodies. All about sex objects. Very detrimental for young girls to absorb the idea that this is "mainstream"--that this is how they should look, that sexual objectification is OK. It makes many older women cringe, for themselves and for their daughters (and sons), and it's not very healthy for young boys either. The blurring of the line between porn and mainstream images is not a positive development, not about freedom from sexual inhibitions. Sure it appeals to the average (aesthetically indiscriminate) male and sells (trashy) magazines. But don't tell me it's Art--it's kitsch. When kitsch is used in Art--there is cultural critique. No cultural critique in SI.
You really don't want to get into any debate with me about art history so let's not discuss the Sistine Chapel LOL 
I agree with you on the point that this is a hot topic on DU which proves it has culturally relevant content. But not that it has anything to do with Art, capital A.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read