Most offensive and bizarre magazine cover ever

Parent Cafe
1

<p>This week’s (Feb 6) Bloomberg Business Week truly has the most crude and offensive cover ever. Under the caption, “Let’s Get it On,” it shows two jetliners humping (charitably put . . . ) one another – this, to analyze the merger of Continental and United Airlines. This is the kind of idea usually only dreamed up in a frat house on a Saturday night with way too many shots. How humping airliners gets on the cover of a major national publication and the editors think this a good idea is, well, as dumb as any of those other ideas that usually seem great on a Saturday night but look really, really stupid in the light of day in the morning. Seriously embarrassing for Business Week. Ugh!</p>

2

<p>Calm down. As much as I love this country, sometimes the people are just so intolerably prude, it makes me want to pack up and go back to Europe.</p>

3

<p>It isn’t prudish. I just don’t think the picture on the cover of Business Week is professional, that’s all. Part of me wants to say, “Is this the best ya got?” Skin appeals are the lowest common denominator of generating interest, indicating poverty of imagination otherwise. I am happy, by the way, to look at Playboy covers.</p>

4

<p>I don’t think it’s a skin appeal. Unless you REALLY like airplanes.</p>

5

<p><a href=“http://worldairlinenews.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2012/02/united-continental-merger-bloomberg-businessweek-cover-lr.jpg?w=606[/url]”>http://worldairlinenews.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2012/02/united-continental-merger-bloomberg-businessweek-cover-lr.jpg?w=606&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Let’s let the members judge.</p>

6

<p>I would just say you are being tad prude. I thought it as amusing, and well it may be me but I always like the touch of dirty humor in otherwise dull and lifeless topics. Gives it some… “Spice”. Haha</p>

7

<p>I think is is very creative, though it does offend my sense of airline safety.</p>

8

<p>I thought it was funny. And absurd enough to grab attention (and get us advertising for them!), yet it’s meaning is only visible to those of us who actually know about sex already. </p>

<p>I mean come on, it’s not like they are showing Continental’s p&nis! :)</p>

9

<p>Space shuttle has done this for years…</p>

10

<p>I think it is lame, to say the least. It brings to mind horrific crashes to me, not sex.</p>

11

<p>Sure, it’s crude. But I don’t see how it’s offensive. The topic of sex is so unnecessarily taboo in our society, that even an airplane perched on top of another outrages us. Something’s wrong here, no?</p>

12

<p>I found it odd myself but neither sex nor crashes were my 1st thought. Didn’t particularly LIKE the cover but didn’t think much of it one way or another when I just got it in my mailbox. For that matter, I don’t partiularly like the Newsweek cover with the gladiators on the cover–Romney & Newt–ick & weird too.</p>

13

<p>Don’t watch you tubes of refueling in midair, you are likely to be scared for life.</p>

14

<p>I thought it was hilarious, and not just because I live in the Chicago area, and this merger seems to be all we hear about lately.</p>

15

<p>If they had panned back would we have seen little regional jets spawning off in the contrails with newborns in the flight deck? Those babies are REALLY scary, pun intended!</p>

16

<p>Somehow I expected United to be on top… ;)</p>

17

<p>I think it is crude and unprofessional. </p>

<p>My viewpoint seems to be floating farther and farther out into the ether of the golden oldies, however.</p>

18

<p>I think it’s funny. We’re far too sensitive as a country if we find that offensive IMO.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>Safer than the missionary position.</p>

20

<p>LOL, did not think of <em>humping</em> when I saw the pic . . .</p>