My take on it entirely. I wonder if any of the women pictured in those 28 years "felt degraded"? I think the people that "feel offended" dislike their OWN BODY and do not want others to "think of them as deficient". All the while everyone KNOWS THEY ARE DEFICIENT ANYWAY, AT LEAST MENTALLY!!!!!

Would you feel different if it was naked men?

If women didn't like nudity or beauty, the cosmetic world would crash tomorrow. Most women are exhibitionists in some form or another. Degrading? Really? I'm pretty sure they're proud of what God gave them. Its really ok to be proud of what nature gave you.

Good move for Bild. Nothing against nudity but I think people will take the paper more seriously if it didn't have nudes on the cover, like certain other supermarket tabloids. Oh wait...was Bild a tabloid?

H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as the suspicion that somebody, somewhere was having fun.

Andi...if it had pictures of naked men I wouldn't buy it, or look at it, but I sure as hell wouldn't protest it. Every person I know is sick and tired of all this politically correct pig crap, it really needs to go. Life shouldn't be about making the world safe for those who dislike something...you simply cannot guarantee the absolute happiness of one without guaranteeing the absolute misery of another.

As far as pictures go, paintings were the tabloids of our past...I have seen way more paintings of naked women with fat, little cherubs than strapping men in the buff. I guess this isn't a new issue...Sculptures were different, but everybody was free swinging then so equal rights were firmly in place.

My father told me once, "There is no such thing as an ugly woman...some are just prettier than others"

I agree with him whole hearted, but I have seen many ugly men...don't care to be entertained by them.

Most women don't really care to see another woman's milk bags when she is trying to read a newspaper.

had a good laugh over this. i think the only women who felt degraded were the ones that saw a better rack than they have, plain and simple. funny women dont feel degraded, roleplaying, and so on, of that i would find more degrading, than someone who willingly was showing them. i bet the woman who made the degrade comment is so into bondage its silly, but too afraid like some to even admit they like as such, and dont go saying missionary is the only thing women like, cause, well i know better.

@latekate

So read a different paper maybe? I'm willing to bet there are plenty of other papers to read that don't have women's breasts on them, try one of them if it offends you. There are plenty of publications that I don't care for, but I don't worry about them, I just don't read them. So much easier.

I am not offended by nudity. I am offended by men treating women as objects to be ogled, used and abused. We are people and just want to be seen as such.

what you fail to realise blondeness, is that is only your opinion, not the opinion of every being on this planet. some women like to flaunt what they have as do men. If you dont like what you see, there are these things called eyelids, and a head, they attach to your neck, and of course tied into the rest of your being. now those eye lid things i was talking about, they work the same way as blinking, or even sleeping if you can imagine such a thing! yes, you simply close the eyelids, and enable the neck to TURN your head as this happens to a degree casual, and unstrenuous effort, and guess what happens? YOU DONT SEE THEM! WOW! try that technique as many times as you like untill you get good at it. i do however have a feeling you are a pro at being able to do this, but, didnt know it, or needed something to b!tch about?

Monika is a buzz killer! Maybe she has been looking in the mirror?

Women are people, not sex objects... who happen to have a 'right' to nationally insured contraception without co-pay (because after all, sex is an entitlement).

The thing is, I'm not sure women can have that both ways. I know the more I hear women stammer on about keeping this, that or the other out of their uteric freedoms, the more I view women as objects.

Did they hold a gun on the topless women and force them to pose for the pictures?

@MrEd7451

I was just joking you boob. Just joking again. : )

Make a statue of the female form and it's "art"...put it on the front page of a newspaper and it's "degradation". I'm sure that makes sense to some people but I'm not one of them. What is the difference between a display of a beautiful female form and a beautiful sunrise/sunset? If we fail to appreciate beauty, then we fail in our humanity. They weren't posting porn images or even sexual ones at all....just the female form topless. It's sad that some of us think of that as "degrading"....pathetic, even.

When a product has mystery as to what is the latest and greatest fad, it is going to have many females buying it to keep up with the Jones'. At 56yo; I can't name any current fads/trends, except that women are doing some swoop bang thing these days.

I wonder sometimes about what is the advantage of living in a society (Europe) that has gone beyond being offended over everything, and the USA, which tries to project an image of righteousness on every subject. I think acceptance is a sign that people have grown up and moved on to bigger issues.

I wonder sometimes about what is the advantage of living in a society (Europe) that has gone beyond being offended over everything, and the USA, which tries to project an image of righteousness on every subject.

a lot fewer lawsuits, for one.

figure that 5% of Americans are attorneys, we have to pay that 5% to keep them fed, that is like an additiional tax on everything we do

I don't understand the necessity of placing images of women baring their breasts on the cover in the first place... but I think the human body naked... not in a sexual way... is quite beautiful.

Paul M in Wbridge--women are not asking for nationally insured contraception. Pay attention. The law says that all insurers have to provide contraception for no additional cost. First, a woman has to get insurance--then, she has to pay for it (unless her employer offers it as a perk). All women who get insurance are to get birth control as part of their coverage (which they don't, right now), and furthermore are to get it for no additional cost.

There is no parallel treatment for men that is refused--and this is particularly annoying given that virtually all women of childbearing age (other than those who cannot afford it) use birth control. People seem to think that Planned Parenthood will give it for free or at reduced cost--well, yes, they will. But Planned Parenthood served 4 million men (there's a surprise for you, I'll bet--as men get care too) and women in the US last year. There are 300 million people in the US--about half of those are women, and about a quarter of those women are of child-bearing age. That would be about 35 million women who need care--of whom less than 4 million get birth control through Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a private group with limited funding.

Let's say that there were a male health problem which was life-threatening if not treated, life-threatening if not controlled, and life-threatening if not prevented. There is no single prevailing medical condition for men--so it's a tiny bit hard for men to conceptualize. However, if all women of child-bearing age use birth control when they can get it, and when they use birth control they need neither abortions nor prenatal care nor birth care nor pregnancy-related emergency care, then it sounds like it's a substantial savings to insurers and to society when women have birth control.

A woman who becomes pregnant and cannot afford prenatal care is in danger of dying along with the fetus. A mother of one child who becomes pregnant and develops life-threatening health problems cannot take care of her other child, might leave that child motherless, or might wind up with a disabling condition that will keep her from ever working again and contributing to the family. It is facetious for people to say--well, just don't have sex. Virtually everyone in the US has sex--even priests aren't always celibate. It's a bit like telling poor people to stop eating altogether because the food they can afford makes them fat. We haven't believed that people, especially married people, should refrain from having sex as a means of birth control for the last half century--and if you still believe it, then please join us in the 21st century. I assure you we have cookies here.

The idea that birth control makes women promiscuous, birth control is murder, and birth control is only used by the irresponsible died back in the 1970s sometime. Birth control is an everyday medication for women which has contributed many positives to our society. It is inexpensive (for the most part--most women only pay about $15-50 a month--or about $180 per year for a generic brand), and it is effective. When women are only given access to insurance which is expensive but does not cover birth control, then they have to pay not only what men pay--but an additional cost as well for a medication that covers a lot of health problems.

Look--women cannot have pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. That will kill a person. One must plan one's pregnancies, and that is what birth control is about. Being able to choose when to be pregnant or not is important to women. And, if married women really are supposed to just hold an aspirin between their knees rather than have sex with their husbands, then you are going to see a heck of a lot more divorce and broken families, because married men aren't giving up sex.

There is no reason for birth control--a safe and nearly universal medication for women--to be denied by some health insurers. None. While I think that making it "at no additional cost" is a good idea, I'd be fine with giving that up as long as it was treated like any other medication prescribed by a doctor--with a limited co-pay as long as it is generic. The point is that insurers have been denying birth control because they don't want to cover young women; young women get pregnant and pregnancies are expensive. When young women are going to have to pay for their own birth control, they often have to use the money that they might have used to pay for health insurance.

Do you get it yet? Health insurers have been using denial of services to get rid of young women because young women cost more money than young men. That is what the new bill is about--to keep insurers from discriminating against women indirectly by refusing to cover a medication that is about as inexpensive and ubiquitous as penicillin. Okay?

Fine--let's make it a traditional copay rather than "free" (which really means "no additional cost")? Does that make you happy?

ll these clueless men who think it is horrible that they are no longer going to have soft core porn on the cover...how would you feel if it was a couple of sexy gay men on the cover?

I would hazard a bet that a very large number of the women who had their photos taken later regretted it, that it even cost a few lost jobs or job opportunities. When you are very young you do stupid things, and if you are young and desperate for money you can easily be exploited. So yes some of these women had a 'gun' to their heads. The few hundred dollar or the equivalent in Marks is gone within a week or so.

Girls Gone Wild etc is a prime example of that, but most of them don't get paid. And when they get back from Spring Break etc. They realize what they did...but then it is too late. Or is it, The owner plead guilty and paid millions in fines for using underage women, not validating ages and failure to obtain legal consent forms. He agreed to change his practices, within a year he was back in court for failing to do so and paid another 1.7 MIllion in fines.

I would hazard a bet that a very large number of the women who had their photos taken later regretted it, that it even cost a few lost jobs or job opportunities. When you are very young you do stupid things, and if you are young and desperate for money you can easily be exploited. So yes some of these women had a 'gun' to their heads. The few hundred dollar or the equivalent in Marks is gone within a week or so.

You can't outlaw stupidity. Posing topless sure as hell beats some of the other things they could be doing to get some money.

Plain and simple censorship

I dress up in heals that hurt to walk in for long periods, dresses that show off my legs. V-cut to show some cleavage and its not because I enjoy the pain in my feet and calves or the cold wind up my mini skirt, its to get attention. I like attention. blondness032, don't pretend you don't like the attention of men unless maybe your a Lesbian in which case I am not sure why you don't like looking yourself.

Notice that Bild, with the topless photos, was the largest-selling newspaper in the country. Somebody must have approved. If a newspaper was so bland as to offend nobody, I suspect that its circulation would be small.

If European women don't mind, why did the paper move the pictures?

Why is it necessary to "accuse" a woman of being asexual and/or ugly if she doesn't like women being publicly objectified?

Why is the worst insult you can think of for a woman is that she's ugly?

Why do people continue to comment on how physically attractive or unattractive female politicians are?

Why do I not see men in jock straps selling cars on TV?

I for one don't want to see men in jock straps selling cars on tv. I don't think too many people do. However women on the other hand are nice to look at and men are visual. Facts are facts. And as far as accusing women of being asexual, I dont think thats the issue, the issue is that only women are complaining about it. Men are saying, if you dont like it dont look at it, but dont make them give up what they want to look at. If men complained about cosmo or another magazine wouldnt you be upset if you liked looking at it?

I am so ridiculously SHOCKED to read so many comments supporting sexualizing women in order to sell papers. I thought educated people saw right through these tactics. The question isn't whether the women on the cover are being degraded, it is whether we are constantly teaching our little girls and little boys that girls are here for male pleasure.

If they want to use sex to sell their paper, I have no problem with that, but it needs to be equal representation so our children do not grow up conditioned to think that their body parts relegate them to a position of object or entitled observer. The simple fact that women feel the NEED to use their sexuality to gain male attention speaks of this mind set.

This absolutely must stop. I don't want my daughter growing up thinking she's worth more to society because she is willing to expose her breasts to men.

Brenda , I see you've moved onto another topic to add your worthless 2 cents to. Your opinion about birth control and blaming women for no self control were high and mighty and self-serving.

ll these clueless men who think it is horrible that they are no longer going to have soft core porn on the cover...how would you feel if it was a couple of sexy gay men on the cover?

A topless woman constitutes pornography?

I wonder as the cultural differences that prevent even the supermarket tabloids from publishing photos of half naked women on page one in the U.S. When I was in France, back in 1994, some of their currency featured a bare-breasted woman.

love the comment that women don't want to be treated like women (ogled, used, and abused), they just want to be treated like people. First off, the definition of being treated like a woman is not ogled, used, and abused. Though actually, I don't know what the definition might be of being treated like a woman. Is there such a thing? CLearly this person has some baggage upstairs that needs clearing out.

Secondly, if you don't want to be used and abused, then you don't want to be treated like a person either. Humans of both genders can be cruel. Maybe you should ask to be treated like a favored pet. Lastly, if you ask most men how they would feel if they were being ogled by strangers, most would perk up and say: cool! really? A lot of men work very hard to be viewed as a sex object. Most of us just fail trying. Being sexy and a competent human being are not oxymorons and those that think it is have issues best left to a psychologists couch.

I wouldn't have a problem with nude women OR men on the cover of Bild. It's nudity. It only becomes porn when sexual acts are involved. People may find nudity titillating, certainly, but the porn occurs in their minds, not the image itself.

My yes, poor women. Their bodies were not intended to be displayed for all to see. Heaven forbid I mention how we walked around barely clothed many many years ago, and if you have ever traveled, in some countries' women's breasts are out every second of every day. BUT, lets protest every art museum here in the US, there are too many breasts on display. Please do not OBJECTIFY women as lesser forms of humanity. Women can think for ourselves.

Since somehow this became a thread for the birthcontrol/insurance debate: We women can most certainly remember to POP a pill every morning, as long as the insurance company's PAY for us to have our sexual freedoms via their plans; because some of us cannot bear to ask our partners to use a condom, or buy and utilize any other form of contraception that has been around for 50+ years, as that would take too much time away from the escapade. Seeing as how MEN cannot get pregnant and women CAN, perhaps the precautionary measure should be to CHOOSE WISELY who and when you interact sexually. tidbit: there are some women who cannot take birth control

I guess I'll be canceling my subscription :)

I am a women and I do not find pictures of naked women offensive at all. If you have a beautiful body, why not show it. I am not crazy about women with boob jobs though....They look fake, like a basketball cut in half and pasted to a chest. I am talking naturally beautiful women. So get over yourselves people. Geez.....We are not talking porn here.

Americans are just such prudes! In Europe you see public nudity often and lets not even mention the legalized prostitiution and soft drugs. If we just would realize that people are people and not be so anal about everything, maybe we would enjoy life more! In truth, I am a very conservative individual and would not like to see my daughter's breasts on the front page, but, I would respect her decisions and not condemn her or a publication that would do this as a daily custom.

Anybody calling Bild a newspaper doesn't know what the heck they are talking about.Bild is about as credible a news reporting paper as is the Nat.Inq.-it's not worth wiping your a@@ with.Unless you like your rear covered in printers ink.

All joking aside-I have nothing against nudity of men or women, and if the women depicted had no problem posing for the pics-who cares?But lets call it what it is-it's a tabloid of the trashiest kind,that used the nude pics to entice a mostly male audience to buy the paper.

"Would you feel different if it was naked men?" - Andi-1045453

Yes. Let's face it, women are infinitely better looking naked than men. I mean, would you rather study a Monet or a crayon drawing by a first grader.

@Brenda

I LIKE your attitude! (1.24) As do most men I'd bet. lol ;-)

Most women would not be beguiled by a picture of a mans genitals. a tight bum? a nice chest? - now we're talkin'. Genitals? Meh!

TLM2012 Brenda , I see you've moved onto another topic to add your worthless 2 cents to. Your opinion about birth control and blaming women for no self control were high and mighty and self-serving.

I see you have moved on as well to add your worthless 2 cents too (not to). You are correct, it is my opinion, just like you are trying to give your opinion about me. As far as the no self control issue, you are correct. We live in a society today of always blaming someone else for our own mistakes. Back in the day we took responsibility for our mistakes, not blame someone else. If I have sex without the proper precautions and get pregnant, do I blame the man or myself for having sex with the man. I can't control what he does, but i surely can control what I do. So if a unwanted pregnancy happens, it's my fault. That being said of another subject, concerning this one, I have to say that the newspaper has been in business for 20 + years with topless women on it. If that is how they want to sell their papers so be it. If I have an issue with it, I just won't buy it, but I shouldn't stop every man in the country from enjoying what they want just because I prefer not to look at it.

I just won't buy it, but I shouldn't stop every man in the country from enjoying what they want just because I prefer not to look at it.

But if it's on the cover, you have no choice but to look at it. And so do your children.

If nudity has nothing to do with humiliation and loss of dignity, why are prisoners the world over stripped naked to break them down? Did we strip all those prisoners in Abu Ghraib just cause we didn't want to have to do the laundry?

@carolanne1 - If nudity has nothing to do with humiliation and loss of dignity, why are prisoners the world over stripped naked to break them down? Did we strip all those prisoners in Abu Ghraib just cause we didn't want to have to do the laundry?

Now you are trying to mix apples with oranges. One is women doing it of their own free will and getting paid well to do it. The other is being forced upon someone against their will. Try not to mix your fruit. Also, in what way do women and children feel humiliation and loss of dignity by seeing the cover of a newspaper with a naked woman on it? Where you born with cloths on?

But if it's on the cover, you have no choice but to look at it. And so do your children.

I am sure men do not want to constantly see maxi pad commercials either on TV, but hey, there they are. In the work force its OK for women to bring in cosmopolitan and magazines like that are in family's houses all over America where kids can look at half naked women posing in lewd ways. You don't seem to have a problem with that. National geographic have been pleasuring kids throughout the ages, but i don't see you trying to shut them down. Why are most of my gender such hypocrats?

Cleveland, I disagree. What I think is that people are only against the nudity of ugly people.

Mic from Cleveland

Only ugly people are against nudity. Nudity is not porn.

This has nothing to do with porn, just the female perspective. How would you feel about having to see a magazine with a picture of a guy's penis everyday? Would you get sick of it after awhile?

You can't see a boob on American network TV, but the Europeans use them to sell newspapers. We could really use an industrial-grade enema to clean out the 19th-century thinking we're stuck with here.

yet there are far too many that want to firmly plant us back into the 18th century, they think that will make us "better"

@Eugene

Actually there are plenty of boobs on American tv, in fact we're about to get inundated again with them. We call them political candidates and we'll see plenty of them until November.

True, but our boobs are not as pleasant to look at

Japanese primetime TV in the 80s and 90s used to have topless or carefully censored nudity on it. Heck, there was even boobs shown in children's cartoons like Yatterman. After their economic bubble crashed, they decided to be a bit more serious about things and thus the vulture censors swooped in.

Eugene - I agree completely. We lived in Switzerland for a short time, and people (men and women and children) routinely swim nude in public (city run) swimming pools. No kids were ever "harmed" by it.

It was so funny that everyone was up in arms about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a few years back. The American attitude about these things is completely ridiculous.

This makes me think of my trip to Canada (Quebec!) when I was a kid that had a few $$$ of my own in my pocket. I was maybe 10 or 11(1971-72?). My parents became a lot more permissive as soon as we crossed the border. Besides buying regular newspapers I bought a couple of porno magazines. I went to a porn movie (unintended) where the people (all ages, from grandparents down) showed up dressed like they were going to church- suits & ties, dresses etc... I bought beer at a store and drank it even with cops driving by. Everything was so, so NORMAL. There was no nation-wide uproar or panic if a kid happened to see tits, a fully nude woman, or even adults copulating on TV or movies. No one said a word unless someone caused trouble. I loved it! It was like going north 40 miles from my home in the US, crossing an invisible line and then having REAL freedom to experience, learn and grow in areas forbidden at home. I always thought that the European approach and views on all of these things was so much more mature than our childish view of them. It is sad to see the worst part of American close-minded attitudes, morality & PC-ism infiltrating into the European mindset. Honestly, what person is even going to be remembered for flashing titties for that paper 3 months later unless they were famous to begin with? Bild is making a big mistake in giving way to this PC idiocy and I hope that it reflects in their sales. Too bad...too bad...

Merlin - part of our European tour was a short stay in Belgium (before we were in Switzerland). Here's a blog posting you might enjoy:

http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/post/2009/07/16/Ie28099ll-drink-to-that!.aspx

Eugene Saxe

You can't see a boob on American network TV

There's something called the "internet" where you can see boobs and a lot more. 19th century thinking??? Have you seen the visual productions that come out of the San Fernando valley??

;)

Indiana Rick,

You are right. I find it interesting that people want to censor sexually suggestive material because it might make us salacious and licentious, but some of the same people don't think watching violence will make us violent. And extra points for the Pink Floyd reference.

Yeah, you would. Especially if they showed guys with really long ones. The more unnaturally long, the better. We women would enjoy that.

Wow....that just shows what a shallow person you are...not to mention a complete loser.

Actually most guys wouldn't care. It's unfortunate that there's this mentality amongst the fairer sex, especially the advocates of it that anyone who appreciates the female form for beauty is instantly objectifying. Women aren't objects. Women are people and enjoying an attractive woman is natural and not objectifying. Womaen appreciate half naked men in the same way and no one goes up in arms over that "objectification." No. I see nothing wrong with nudity in any regard if they choose to be naked. If they don't then that's just as well. The point being, if you want to make a deal about this then you should live up to your own standards and "objectify" the men you find attractive in the same way.

what's the female breast actually for? feeding babies, plain and simple. why we should attach some significance greater to a topless female than a topless male is a mystery.

@danwill

Actually dan, many women find stimulating them very erotic, perhaps you might try it sometime, maybe then you might get it. Make her happy and she's likely to enjoy it more, which will pay off for you. See? There's more to it than feeding babies! Seriously, you have to ask?

If the magazine showed male genitalia, then it should also include literal spreads of women.

mred, I was actually trying to make a point. I like female breasts as much as the next man. :)

but the simple fact is that they are really nothing but baby feeding devices.

we'll not talk about the fact that many women feel like they are "less of a woman" when they have to undergo such sad procedures as a radical mastectomy due to breast cancer

Also a thing to consider, at least in my experience, I've found that in heterosexuals, women generally find looking at the naked female form more pleasing than men find looking at the naked male form. Just about every woman I've known has said that they appreciate the beauty of the female body. Hell, many of those women said that the female body is more pleasing to look at than the male.. again I'm not talking about lesbians here, I'm talking straights.

The naked female form is gracefully smooth and beautiful to behold, and there are many in both genders that agree with that. Businesses know this as well and that's why they use sexy women in advertizing more often then scantily clad men.. it doesn't sell as well.

There is a reason that Bild is the best selling news paper in Germany and why they've had the naked woman on the front page for 28 years... because people like it and thus.. it SELLS!

L. Che banned for nasty comments

The solution would be to have a picture of a nude guy alongside that of the nude woman. That way it's fair to both. It would be a double-win for bisexuals.

I hope they have a newspaper of a guy's penis in the front cover EVERYDAY, so then you'd be told to "ignore it" if you complain.

That's not reading a newspaper, that's looking at the picture(s). Wait, that's like Playboy, right? You only get it for the articles, not the pictures of naked women.

Yes, but a smile will do just as good

Yeah I like boobs a lot. Why do I like boobs a lot. Gotta like boobs a lot.

Fugs!!

Why not

I hope no children saw the paper.If they did,the first thing they would say is "EEEEWWWWWWWWWW!!"

It isn't an alternative paper, it is mainstream media in Germany. 4 million copies a day are sold so by no means is it an alternative paper. You must however buy alot of alternative papers since you are such an authority on them. Are you looking for something or are you one of the alternative advertisers?

@Random, the German children see the newspaper everyday and learn that the body is a wonderful and beautiful thing. They are not taught from birth to hate, manipulate and surgically alter it. American's have such hate for their bodies it's sick.

have-I know of no boy that is 10 and younger that would want to see a naked women.Children do not want to see any naked person,male or female.The only person they see naked is themselves.When they hit 12 or 13,things will start to change.

@random

Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of kids, boys especially, are interested in looking at girls significantly sooner than 12-13. I myself was infatuated with women's breasts as early as 8 and I didn't turn out to be a sexual deviant , my son showed significant interest by 10 and he is quite well adjusted. Every kid is different, if they are not raised to think that nudity is 'bad or 'dirty' or 'disgusting' there is nothing wrong with it. I see nothing wrong with nudity. If this were pornography we were talking about that would be another thing, but simple bare breasts does not qualify as pornography.

I never said bare breasts were pornography.As for children,boys are intrested in women around 10 on the average.Girls get intrested in boys around 12 or 13.But when I say a boy gets "intrested" in a girl around 10,I don't mean that a boy wants to see the girl naked.Yes, some boys are different,but that is likely because of hormones.

PS: I'm glad that we could have a civilized chat.Until now,I have been trolled by Lori with her idiotic ,meaningless comments.If only there were more people like you,who actually put up a good fight.

@Random

I didn't think you were saying it was pornography, just a qualifier statement. you did say though, and I quote,

"I know of no boy that is 10 and younger that would want to see a naked women.Children do not want to see any naked person,male or female"

I just disagree with you in that lots of kids do develop sexual interest in the opposite sex (or even same sex) significantly sooner than 10, far more than I think you realize.

Children don't see nakedness as dirty. That is taught to them. The more breasts are exposed the less erotic they become. Our Victorian prudish society finds them erotic because they're hidden and forbidden.

@workingpoor

So you're telling me that I was taught to be interested in breasts at 8? You are wrong! The human psyche is hardwired to find breasts erotic. Yes that is enhanced by prudish attitudes but breasts are tied into sexuality.

In tropical climates where breasts are normally left exposed by the indigenous peoples, breasts are not considered erotic, and any male finding them to be so would be an immature childish man. So YES I'm telling you that you were taught, not directly of course, that breasts are sexual organs.

havelinaz

@Random, the German children see the newspaper everyday and learn that the body is a wonderful and beautiful thing.

Then why isn't there a penis on the front cover too? it's part of the human body is it not??

@what_the_

I don't know, I'm not the editor of the paper.

What_the, there's no Penis on the cover because there's no Vagina on the cover.

I think most people are forgeting this is Europe where half the women on the beach are topless.
It's not a big deal.

BTW Miami, take a walk down South Beach and you'll see plenty of topless women there as well, on a Public Beach.

Get over it.

Marketeers have figured out that men respond to unclothed women while women respond to fully-clothed men in higher class attire.

You are right, Publius. Some of the German TV ads would have the morality police here screaming.

Yup like naked women kissing to sell orange juice. Its the norm there

American attitudes about nudity and sex reflect our (pathetic) Puritan heritage. Europeans who come here are amazed that there are no topless beaches. It's not a big deal in many European countries. They also don't have a problem with men wearing "banana hammocks." Frankly, I find those gross and would rather see a naked man than one wearing a Speedo. I don't care who you are, NO man looks good in one of those things.

Exactly. Do we have naked pictures on the cover of the New York Times? No, because they don't belong there.

Want one without find a different paper

@demdidi

They do if the publishers and customers wanted them there.

But what Demdidi and Greg forget is that this story is about Germany.

Sorry you two, nudity is all over there. They aren't as uptight as you apparently are.

let me guess, fat and ugly?

If nudity is indecent then why are you born naked? Did God or Mother Nature or whoever is responsible make a mistake? You are living proof that fear and ignorance breeds fear and ignorance. As for the inbreeding, that is a whole new twist on things. Maybe you have some unresolved issues with inbreeding? Just because your parents got divorced they are still brother and sister. Get over it.

I don't get the comments that say you have to be fat and ugly if you don't approve of female nudity on the front of a newspaper. Generally, it's the really ugly, loser guys that love this stuff the most. All you guys posting today are probably fat, ugly and little!

nmc well said. they are also probably the ones using the word "boobs!" "Hey, Ralph, Geddaloadda 'dos boobs!" '''"I know Harv, those are some great knockers, huh?. Pass the pigsfeet woodja? Got any Hamm's or Schlitz in the icebox?"

Nudity is natual. Clothes are man-made. This is life. I don't agree with putting nudes on the front cover of your paper. Or on the third page. Because Nudity isn't news. That aside, if that's what is wanted to be done and the participants are willing than what right does anyone have to shove their beliefs and opinions down anyone elses throat?

@K.Starkey, so, are you calling the 4 million German's who buy this newspaper indecent and stupid animals? This coming from someone who's avatar might resemble Jesus and a child. Where, by chance, are your non-judgemental Christian values? Judge lest ye be judged? Please, keep teaching your children to hate their bodies and see how they turn out. Yes, respect your body, put good things into it and you will get good things out of it. But also love your body and how it looks; regardless of other's judgement (like yours).

.....and you are not. What a moron....please don't breed.

Lori-LOL,can you be any more of a troll?Go back to trolling on you-tube where you belong.

Real Simple

The "newspaper" moved them because it was causing them lost revenue. The rest is a canard.

It appears Lori's sensibilities are very thin. I guess she doesn't think German women are hot?

Lost revenue?

It's the highest selling paper in the country and they've had the pictures up for 28 years.
They'll probably lose more revenue by moving the pictures than the could have lost already.

Apparently, I lot of people on this thread have never been to Europe.

A male with a beautiful penis is truly a gift from God. Why not have them on the cover of the paper.....I want a male swimsuit issue.....that would be a big seller too...women want to see men , not other women. So let's have something for everybody.

@Lori

Well I could send you pics hun'. They might not be on the cover of a newspaper but... lol

Lori, tbh I've never seen a "beautiful" penis. I don't think that's quite the right adjective as most fitting words relate to size, girth, etc. Beautiful is great match for women though, as long as they're actually beautiful.

Any woman who calls my penis beautiful and treats it as such gets a big extra dose of affection from me. Lots of presents and flowers too. Wow! I think Lori just found the solution to end the gender war.

So, Lori thinks breasts are like penises. What a bummer. Logical fallacy, at best.

Penis = Vagina, not breasts.

Disgusted, nice pun

You can't purchase it "again" if you never purchased it in the first place. Maybe you should so you can enlighten yourself.

@disgruntled

I think you missed the intentional irony in his statement.

You are such a loser....the poor woman that gets stuck with you........

The troll Lori strikes again.

Nudity in a non-sexual way is beautiful.

@HerStory

Nudity is a sexual way is beautiful as well.

Failing to understand how just because someone is nude it is automatically sexual... unless that's just how you view it.

*typo* shoulda read

"Nudity in a sexual way is beautiful as well."