Seriously, we tried not to comment on this. We really did. But we couldn’t stop ourself from clicking on the link. Reading the article (which was just like all the other articles). It was too much even for us. See, it’s like the bestselling book in the nation, yet:
“We felt a majority of our customers would not be comfortable with the image in our stores,” Wal-Mart spokeswomen [sic] Karen Burk told the New York Daily News.
Apparently it is up to us to state the obvious to Wal-Mart: yes, your customers are comfortable with full frontal nudity. They’ve seen it before (and anyone who finds the Supreme Court titillating, we hope you get the help you need). Also, you’re selling it on your website. That sort of make you a hypocrite — presumably online buyers will be even more shocked as they won’t have the buffer created by flipping through the pages while waiting in line.
And maybe it’s us, but we think teaching people about the electoral college (which is not in hte Ivy League) is far more important than a little fun with the justices.
1 response so far ↓
Susan Gable // Oct 21, 2004 at 11:15 am
In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They can say look how wonderful they are (or not, depending on your perspective) to keep “smut” out of the stores, but they can still cash in from sales via their websites. If they really want to put their money where their morals are, they should pull it from their website, too. (Or stock it both places. That would be prefered. But at least consistancy wouldn’t be hypocritical of them. I’m sure they figure no one will notice the two-facedness of this stance.)