One of the perks of being a famous woman is that if you ever have a baby, magazines will pay you millions of dollars to take photos of it.

And that's true whether you have an adorable baby or an angry pink monster with freakish little grasping fingers that creep you out every time you look at them. Like Christina Aguilera's baby.

Now before you get upset, remember that we're not the ones saying that. People magazine paid $1.5 million for exclusive photos of Christina Aguilera and her new baby Max, but since hardly anyone bought the issue, it's basically you who are saying that Christina Aguilera's baby is a ridiculous, funny-to-look-at waste of everyone's time. And you should be ashamed, damn you.

Who doesn't love Christina Aguilera? We know we do – whether she's dressing like a bit of a slut in her music videos or singing so loudly about being beautiful that we honestly worry she'll one day dislodge the moon, Christina Aguilera can basically do no wrong in our books. Apart from having children, of course, because that's rubbish.

Again, that's not our viewpoint but yours. You hate that Christina Aguilera had a baby boy, and you hate the baby boy itself. Even though it's just a poor defenceless baby that's never done anything wrong in any of its short life, you hate it. You hate its stupid ears and the crap middle-aged accountant haircut it was born with.

We know this because People magazine's circulation figures are 100,000 lower than usual, just because Christina Aguilera and her baby are on the front cover. Monsters And Critics reports:

The magazine reportedly paid $1.5 million for exclusive photos of Christina Aguilera and her new baby Max, but early estimates from the President's Day weekend sales show consumers weren't inspired to pick the issue up. The New York Post is reporting that the issue, which hit late last week, is on target to sell only around 1.3 million copies this week, according to some industry sources. Time Inc.'s biggest cash cow rag ordinarily sells and average 1.4 million copies a week on newsstands.

But why? Why do you – personally you – hate Christina Aguilera's baby so much? Is it because all the recent celebrity births and pregnancies have left you with a low-level baby apathy? Is it because you've finally worked out that all babies look completely bloody identical and Christina Aguilera may as well be holding a dentist's baby or even a slightly baby-shaped clump of Play-Doh and you wouldn't know any different?

Or is it because you're just plain pig sick of Christina Aguilera? We can't possibly see how it could be that, though, because during her pregnancy Christina Aguilera only referred to her baby once in public. Apart from that time she painted herself bright orange, got naked and obnoxiously screamed "Woo-Hoo! Look at me! I'm Christina Aguilera and I'm pregnant! Pregnant pregnant pregnant pregnant pregnant PREGNANT!" from the cover of a magazine for cash, of course. But, come on, what expectant mother doesn't do that?

Anyway, we hope you're happy. You've wrecked Christina Aguilera's baby's life, you unthinking swines.

And if People's sales are down because nobody cares that Christina Aguilera's baby is on the cover, just imagine what'll happen when it puts Jennifer Lopez on the cover with her twins. We'll just be lucky if nobody firebombs the newsstands.

Read more:

Christina Aguilera's baby pictures fall flat – Monsters And Critics