Since the child in the school uniform (which Land's End sells, so it would make sense to have on the cover at the end of summer) isn't deliberately being sexualized or posed or dressed for the sole purpose of giving straight men boners (as in an adult woman in a purposely sexualized "naughty schoolgirl" outfit and…

Right, let's all diss on the insecure woman and side with the pornified beauty industry. Makes total sense.

"A six-year old isn't going to know that those images are meant for the male gaze unless she's told as much".

That's the real obnoxiousness. I am both an occasional LE consumer and a person with few objections to nudity and appropriate lasciviousness. I don't, however, want that lasciviousness showing up unsolicited. The only thing creepier than unsolicited nudity is unsolicited nudity sent to me by the people who also…

thank you. i wouldn't want my kids to see this either, not because i'm anti-sex but because i'm anti-THIS version of sex (unrealistic, photo-shopped, objectified, and for sale as the ultimate good in a capitalist economy).

Or someone's teenage daughter could see the sexualized, idealized image of a woman in a state of undress and feel worse about her body than she already does. I guess that doesn't matter, though, as long as the boys get erections.

My child is 6. I don't let him watch TV, he only watches Netflix. He doesn't have a cell phone. He has friends, but none of them supply him with GQ's. He goes out in public every day and does not see women's bodies being used as decoration. I don't give a shit about nudity. I showed him a video of women giving birth…

Hey, thanks for voicing this. I have no children, but I teach 7th and 8th graders and it is gut-churning just how driven these kids are by sexualized images and the media-driven idea of what they are "supposed" to look and act like. I buy things from Land's End* partly because their clothes are modeled on women that…

I don't think it's all about nudity. Most parents will take their kids to a sculpture museum and won't freak out about that. But seeing a scantily clad, ideal bodied woman on the cover of a men's magazine isn't a healthy portrayal of nudity for kids.

You're probably right- I just get tired of people accusing me of being anti-sex, anti-nudity, or being out of touch and blind to what kids are exposed to, just because I have a problem with women's bodies being portrayed like this. If I got this in the mail, I wouldn't freak out about it, but I wouldn't be happy,…

It's possible to teach children that sex and the human body aren't shameful, while also teaching them that women's bodies aren't objects whose primary purpose is to give men boners- which is the message that things like Playboy, or this particular GQ cover, teaches.

I'm not sure the cover of a men's magazine is the place where I think my future hypothetical kids will get healthy attitudes about sex. There is an anti-sex objection to these covers, but that doesn't mean that all sexually suggestive material is liberating or healthy.

I think the point that sending a *mens* magazine with the Lands End catalog is a good point - when I think of Lands End's target audience, young men don't come to mind. And while middle-aged men might wear LE clothes, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it's their wives buying those polo shirts.

Why not have a dog park? If I understood this article properly it's not "no childrens park, all dog" but "some dog please." Kids can have their play space and doggies can have theres. People keep the dogs out of the kid play areas out of courtesy, and people keep themselves and their kids the fuck out of the dog…