I made the same complaint. It isn't that the image shouldn't exist--it IS that the image should NOT be displayed at eye level with a 3-year-old at the checkout counter. Which is exactly what I witnessed, a 3-year-old child staring face to face with a topless woman while mom bought him a child's book. I'm not sure why that would not disturb anyone.
If any of you who call her a "prude" would gladly show your child this image, you would be convicted of child abuse. It is easy to avoid the self-help section. It is easy to avoid the magazine section with Maxim and other covers inappropriate for a child. It is not possible to avoid the checkout line if you want to buy a product. It is not possible for a mom on her own to hold her baby, buy a book, and hold her 3-year-old to prevent him from staring at images right at his eye level. And Kristi, many a store has been sued b/c of injury to the child within that store--it is legally not always the parent's responsibility but the store's to provide a safe environment and the store is the responsible one for what occurs there (whether I agree with this or not, doesn't matter, there are plenty of court cases that verify this, look it up.)
When I questioned the clerk, she said "well, we sell a lot of them." And that makes sense. Sex sells, and money is important right now with the economy, but should it be allowed at the cost of showing a child soft porn?
*If anyone disagrees that this cover is soft porn, the legal definition of soft porn includes: Sexual images that are not violent...Portions of images which are considered too explicit may be obscured (censored) through various means. These techniques include the use of draped hair or clothing, carefully positioned hands or other body parts, carefully positioned foreground elements in the scene (often plants or drapery), and carefully chosen camera angles.