The swimsuit edition finally arrived yesterday. My wife was home at the time, and I showed her the cover shot featuring a mostly topless Kate Upton and her rather generous gifts from God or medical science.
“That’s outrageous,” she said of the cover shot, not Upton.
It really is.
Now I am not going to go on a long-winded rant about the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. And I’m not opposed for any moral or ultra-conservative reasons. I would describe myself as fairly liberal on virtually everything.
I just think the swimsuit edition degrades a magazine that generally does great work and is strong covering women’s sports. This is the same magazine that put the 40th anniversary of Title IX on the cover, which I lauded at the time.
(Note: Fairly sure I’m the only blogger who ran the Title IX cover for a swimsuit edition story this week.)
Simply: The swimsuit edition is a blatant money grab, and SI knows it.
What I have found interesting through the years is how far SI will push the envelope in showing risque shots of the models. Remember when we were stunned to see Cheryl Tiegs in a fishnet? Now that looks like she is wearing a blanket compared to today.
Of course, it is about showcasing bathing suits to the supposed 18 million who read this issue? Right? If that’s case, how come so few of the models wear the top of their bikinis, or anything at all for that matter?
I decided to do my own count of models who clearly aren’t wearing a top: Hey, somebody has to do it. For statistical purposes, my number does include models in the see-through fishnet top since I never have actually seen a woman wear one in real life.
And Vegas, here’s your winning total: 39. And that’s give or take a few I might have missed. Either way, the number seems rather excessive, or as my wife would say, “outrageous.”
Again, what’s the point other than to titillate and sell a bunch of ads? And one more question: How long before SI goes full frontal topless? No arms strategically placed, etc…
I’m betting when the number exceeds 50. At that point, why not?