I am pretty sure I am not being unreasonable, but you never know...

[ChukkyPig]

I am really narked about the fact they always display the Star newspaper, complete with busty girl in thong ready to be rear-mounted, at toddler eye height in my local Smiths.

I am worked up enough to email and complain, say it should be on top shelf away from kiddies view, but a couple of the girls on my post-natal group think I am being really silly.

They basically said that nudity was a natural thing and I was probably jealous of their figures .

So, AIBU to want complain? And, is there any point in doing so?

If I am BU, any suggestions on what to say to my DD when she asks "mummy why hasn't that lady got any clothes on?"

I agree it is soft porn and should probably not be easily viewed by kids (or anyone else who doesn't want to see it)

However, toddlers don't get the sexual connotation and you can easily fob them off with 'she's probably had an accident and is just looking for some new knickers darling'

I don't think you are being unreasonable. But then i don't see the point of those paper anyway.

i think the are bu.
nudity may be a natural thing, but i agree with the sort of nudity you describe as being unnatural.
i wouldnt word the email particularly vehemently though.

IMO The Star (along with its fellow redtops) should simply be displayed where they belong- the toilet roll aisle of supermarkets....(although I wouldn't dream of having them near my unsullied bottom actually.)

I remember having that conversation (pre-DD) with DH in Heathrow once. There was a Maxim/FHM-type magazine with a picture of a naked celebrity with her fingers over her nipples. It was right at toddler height, and I was quite offended. I wonder whether DH has come round to my point of view, now that we have one DD and one on the way.
meemar is right though, that toddlers are too young to understand the sexual aspects of nudity yet. It's probably teenage girls that we should be concerned about.

I read recently that a mother had complained to Sainsburys after they refused to sell her 14 year old son 'the sun'.

Apparantly it's policy you have to be over 16 to buy it. I was quite surprised.

IMO YANBU.

My dp used to buy the bloody star when I first meet him (classy I know)I soon got him out of that habit!
It is soft porn and also degrading, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it in this day and age.
I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with me but I'd feel exactly the same as you chukky, if I was taking my toddler in a shop with that in full view.

Meemar - LOL @ lost her knickers!

YANBU Toddlers might not understand the image but they are learning right from wrong. And putting that magazine at there height is teaching them that's ok to display images of that nature. And this helps to mold them for they day that they do understand them. SAme reason why playboy markets toys to girls. God, I don't even let Bratz in my house. Hell will freeze over before playboy comes in.

The more I read about WH Smith on mumsnet the less I like them.

Looks like I am totally reasonable then. I knew it!

Going to email smiths later. Still suspect it will be a waste of time but never mind!

Not if you get lots of people to email too. I will do it! It's not just smiths though, it's everywhere.

I have a friend who works for the Guardian, perhaps they would be interested in running a story? Why not, anything to slate another paper. Not that they are in competition , lol, I can't think of many people who buy the star and the Guardian.

I would write to smiths - I bet they will be surprised at where it is displayed - i bet these things get moved around over time and it probably isnt really what they want by the till

Email smiths, they do listen.
I emailed them that the pregnancy magazines were on the bottom shelf which isn't the most practical place for a 8 month pregnant woman to retrieve them from, within 2 weeks they were moved to the middle shelf at both the shops I pointed it out at.

You could draft a letter and post it here. Then other people could more easily copy it into a letter themselves and more people would write them.

You aren't being unreasonable. Mums at PN group are not politically or socially aware so ignore their bitchy remarks.

You are right to complain about the objectification of women being presented as a norm and stuck in the faces of small children. Just wait til you have 3 10 year old boys with you!!

Makes for interesting discussions though especially if they've never been challenged on their attitudes before.

YANBU

Ashamed to say we do take the News of the World on sundays because I love the gossip. DD1 once saw a big spread picture of Jordan quite soon after she stopped being breastfed. She said

"mummy I love to drink those boobies" pointing at Jordan's assets!!

We now hide it till after bedtime!

I'm sure I read somewhere (probably on MN) about someone who wrote to WHSmith and complained about Playboy products being marketed to young girls, and WHSmith wrote back and defended their decision saying it was an appropriate brand for girls and had nothing to do with the pronography line of Playboy. It's the same fricken symbol. Nothing to do with it?

So, please please let us know what they have to say about this.

Athee, that was actually a priest who was so angry he knocked the display over, wh smiths tried to prosecute, then backed down.

They still sell the site though, just among their 'adult' stationary. Though what woman in her 30's wants a playboy pencil case I don't know.

site, ahem, shite

YANBU. It should be up to parents if they want their children seeing that sort of thing - if they did and were caught they'd be in a lot of trouble, doesn't that say something?

Libra, I was thinking exactly the same thing and did complain about it once, I wasn't that far (never have been that far) but I had a bad back and couldn't get down to them.

I also don't like comics being on the bottom shelf, I am regularly taking comics off of Tink maybe I should just ignore her and say "well it was at her height" if anyone complains

But I guess if you put women's mags, puzzle books and TV guides at the bottom the old ladies will complain they can't get down to them.

Nudity is natural but tittilating/school girl/ shh poses/sexy underwear/ women as sexual objects/scandalous/psuedo lesbianism crap is pretty vile.

Nudity is natural, yes. So is farting and I try not to that in public.

YANBU - no-one on mum's net is a big fan of W H Smiths due to it's stance on the playboy brand of stationery.

Can you possibly shop somewhere else? I wouldn't give them my money.

OK thanks all. I have sent the following email:

Dear WH Smith

I would like to draw your attention to the newspaper display in your xxxxxxx branch. The Daily Star usually has images on the cover which most people would agree are "soft porn". This newspaper is always displayed on one of the lower shelves in the newspaper stand, at toddler eye height.

I would like to suggest that you arrange for this particular newspaper to be displayed at the top of the newspaper display, where small children will be less likely to see it. I personally find the covers of this newspaper very offensive, and would rather I didn't have to see it at all. However I understand that it is a daily newspaper and as such you want to sell it, I am just asking if it can be moved to the "top shelf".

If this is not possible please can you let me know why it is necessary to display this material at eye-height for children. It may be that I just need to avoid your store in future.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Stroppy Chukky Pig

I will let you know what their response is! If anyone else wants to email them too, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned!