I think it's just socialism John. This is what it looks like from within. It's always some "moral" cause.
In the case of the magazine I suspect it's to do with someone feeling challenged by the girls in the pictures. Jealous perhaps. She really want's the boys to look at her in that way. So in keeping with the "whatever it takes" mindset instilled by the progressivist indoctrination centres that once were schools the obvious answer is to feign distress and outrage. And naturally out of fear of pack attack from the grand moral army the store acquiesces.
Worst part is the sordid victory feeds the socialist beast.

It's childlike thought really. "Please daddy make the nasty go away".
Of course it carries into other aspects of life. It becomes your objection to your neighbor planting a tall tree that might block your view or even removing a tree you liked so he can put up a shed. Then it's please daddy make him stop I want his place that way I like it to be.
When it gets to that stage, and it well and truly is, then everyone's everything is subject to everyone elses whim. Socialism.
Indeed Coles supermarkets are private properties and the Zoo magazines are too.

Little wonder so many now only invest in shares. Whith the socialist nanny state so unrestrained it's just to risky to invest in our ideas and dreams by building a family business. Nanny will want to walk in and start taking over, at our cost.

This subject you're touching on John goes to the core problems we're having that're destroying our economy. The question is how to get childlike minds to understand their attempts to do good are actually doing great harm. Saying it's socialism doesn't seem to register.

I don't have a problem with full frontal nudity, replete with a luxurious beaver, always providing the model is of an age where informed consent is possible, and given!

That the publication is covered in a plain wrapper, and that there are age restrictions relating to its purchase.

Even so, I mean how many times have you walked into the local newsagent and seen immature (giggling gerties) kids treating the place as some sort of public library!?

Besides, I'm sure these things could be viewed and bought online as E books, which as with all such publication, can't be policed by the thought police?

I believe we can be a little too precious about public nudity/immodesty, which in some cultures even something as innocuous/inoffensive as a bared ankle is taken as implied permission, (she was asking for it) to rape?

However in Polynesia, where the body has never been seen as a symbol of shame, the baring of flesh is not so extraordinary; nor is Ho Hum, naked dating!

We enter this world wearing nothing and nothing is all we can't take from it when we leave it
Rhrosty.

Secularism/feminism wants to promote women as sex objects and then compalin when viewed that way. With no moral compass it is full of inconsistencies. Strangley enough the national broadcasters luv to sprout free speach but then manifest like devils when any counter view to their hardline feminist/homosexual doctrines are sprouted.

So John Slater blames the "nanny state" for the decisions of a corporation, and jamo thinks it's socialism despite it having nothing whatsoever to do with the redistribution of wealth (and nor the nationalisation of anything).

Why, when the facts contradict their prejudices, do so many people still choose to go with the latter?

"Lingerie Model" is just as valid a career choice as "Checkout Chick" or "Feminist Blogger' and given the discrimination faced by stereotypically attractive, body positive women in a job market controlled by ugly, body negative Feminists we can't begrudge these women an income. Many people make a living using their physical attributes and posing in your undies strikes me as considerably less demeaning than a tradie jumping into a trench half filled with sewerage to do his work.
Physically attractive or athletically gifted women realistically only really have the time between their mid teens and their mid thirties to make the bulk of their life's income and there's considerable crossover between the two income streams as the women who are blessed with both qualities often do glamour photography as well as other endorsements.

It is the very act of covering, that makes tits titivating.

When I spent some years working around plantations & villages in the islands, I was completely immune to brown boobs. I truly just did not see them. Sometimes young ladies who had been off to school, or worked in larger towns would be embarrassed by a white stranger, & cover their top.

This usually only lasted a few days, then you were subsequently ignored, & normality returned. I don't know if the same happened with local strangers.

I was a little surprised by my reaction, when I spent some time at a plantation, where the owners Australian wife had adopted going topless like the villagers. It was quite amusing to see my own reaction to a couple of white, [well quite tanned actually], boobs among a sea of invisible brown boobs. Even more amusing was my reaction to sitting across a dinner table from a pair of white boobs, where I did notice the brown. I just didn't know where to look, particularly when I detected in the ladies eyes, that she was laughing at my predicament.

I did have a suspicion that this lady rather enjoyed the confusion she caused to white male visitors, & toyed with us where she could.

With these things we are controlled by our conditioning, & expectations. I wonder if such magazines have much market in nudist colonies?