My shopping trip to Walmart this evening would have been much more enjoyable had I not been ambushed in the checkout line by a nearly naked Lady Gaga.
Fortunately, my kids weren't with me today as they usually are, because lately I have noticed my 10 year old son's gaze being drawn to the photos of scantily clad celebrities gracing the covers of magazines like Cosmopolitan, Redbook or Glamour.
Why are these salacious mags shelved at the exact height of my adolescent child's eyes?
And why, if they must be shelved there, is the offensive portion of the magazine cover not obscured?
Doesn't Walmart pride itself on being a family-friendly store?
These and other less charitable thoughts raced through my mind as not-so-patiently I awaited my turn to check out.
But this time, instead of just silently fuming I decided to fume vocally. To the manager. So I went to the customer service desk and politely asked to see a manager. Then, just as politely, I apprised him of my concerns and asked if the store would be willing to aquire magazine blinders that cover the half-naked photos and lascivious article titles. I have seen these kinds of blinders on magazines in other stores and I don't see why Walmart doesn't already utilize them. Surely I cannot be the first customer every to complain about this.
But the manager did listen to my concerns and suggestions and said that he would look into it. I hope he does. And I will continue to prod the store managers at Walmart and other local shops until situation is remedied.
There is absolutely no reason why any patron of any age should ever be "exposed" to an offensive magazine cover unless they so choose. Ever.
So that's my rant for this week. What do you think?