Just boobs

I MISSED this one. As shown on the left, Wired featured a pair of shapely female breasts on the cover of its November magazine edition. It was to promote, they said, a story by Sharon Begley: “All Natural: Why Breasts Are the Key to the Future of Regenerative Medicine.” Uh huh.

Needless to say, many women criticized the tech magazine (mostly read by men, I think) for objectifying women.

Technology writer Cindy Royal grabbed a pitchfork and assumed the mantle of a pissed off Joan of Arc on her blog:

“Boobs. Right there on the cover. A pair of breasts, no head, no rest of body... just boobs. Sure it accompanied a story on tissue re-engineering, so what other possible way might you visually represent that, but with a pair of breasts? No other possible way?”

Wired editor Chris Anderson took issue with Royal’s characterization:

"This cover story was not about tissue engineering, it was about *breast* tissue engineering. Of all the covers with cleavage out there, it's hard to find one more editorially justified than that."

Read the rest of Anderson’s lame rationalizations here. On the other hand, Royal's arguments (cleverly written as a "Dear John" letter) are spot on.

So, does the cover shot objectify women? Of course it does. Is it right? Of course it is not. So why did Wired opt for the cleavage anyway? Because sex sells, baby. And (almost) nothing says sex like naked boobs.

And Anderson – no, um, boob himself – knows it. Check out the inside photo that accompanies the story. It’s nearly Playboyesque. Coincidence? Hardly. Marry a photo of attractive breasts with controversy (angry women with virtual pitchforks), mix in the resulting buzz that is guaranteed to go viral, and Voila: A Perfect Storm for mega sales.

So, Chris, quit whining all the way to the bank.