Maxim cover models aren't known for their modesty, but it seems Olivia Munn has gone too far with a pair of see-through underwear on the February cover. Luckily, Fox News is here to wail, "Won't someone think of the children?"

Actually, the frantic hand-wringing comes courtesy of Dan Gainor, Vice President of Business & Culture at the Media Research Center. He tells Fox News,

It's disgusting ... Maxim has moved their magazine from tawdry to full-on pornography ... Any store could have children coming in. If I were a parent, and I walked into a store and saw that cover, I would make a scene until the manager hid it.


Whether it's due to Munn's grooming habits or the mag's airbrushing, you can't actually make out much of what's going on under those lacy panties. One could even argue that other covers Maxim ran in the past year were far more sexualized, and thus likely to scar children for life. For example, Munn's January 2010 cover was pretty crotch-centric.


In July Nicole Scherzinger was hosed down while wearing a see-through tank top.


And in September Lindsay Lohan pulled her bikini bottom down far enough to prove her pubic hair is far from "untamed."

However, we are not the arbiters of American morals. Walmart is. That's the only explanation we can come up with for Fox News mentioning that the store won't sell the issue featuring Munn's semi-exposed nether regions. You see, Walmart stopped carrying Maxim, Stuff, and FHM, back in 2003 after it was determined that all of their covers are too filthy for young Americans' eyes.

Should Maxim's Olivia Munn Cover Be Shelved With Playboy And Penthouse? [Fox News]