Warning- Politically incorrect material follows.
Most of the US knows about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Si first did one in 1964. The concept began plainly enough- showcase modern swimwear on attractive models. Neither complicated nor particularly sophisticated. At a time when Playboy had existed for all of 11 years, and there were no Victoria's Secret catalogs or other compilations of swimwear, the swimsuit issue was a chance to see nice suits on pretty women without smutty overtones or nudity.
I first saw the swimsuit issue in 1972 at age 14. It had quite an effect on my adolescent mind, and while that effect has lessened considerably as reality overtook fantasy I still enjoy the annual swimsuit 'expose'.
What was once clean fun has gotten progressively more revealing, as noted by many writers and even the most casual of readers. Cheryl Tiegs first exposed her nipples in 1978, and since then the issues gradually showed more and more skin, to the point they approached softcore porn. Body paint was introduced in 2005, pictures became too exposing to be used in apps.
None of these changes have been necessary or even terribly welcome. The internet today makes it easy to see as many pictures of naked women as any person could possibly want to see in a lifetime. SI has made a mistake in trying to compete in providing titillation, rather than keeping things wholesome and appealing to more than prurience.
In the last 4 years or so, however, they have made an even greater mistake. The swimsuit issue has become a political statement. Having gone from swimsuits to semi-nudity, SI suddenly got all socially conscious and woke. Some models had #MeToo slogans painted on them. Athletes began to be models, then 'plus-sized' women, both in an apparent attempt to show that beauty has more to it than just, well, beauty. This year we get the socially conscious treat of the first openly lesbian model, because the sexual preference of the model must make some difference in how she is seen, right? To cap it all we have the first Muslim model in a 'burkhini', which is really just a head scarf attached to what used to be bathing clothes in the West in 1905.
Absolutely none of this is appealing. No one is buying the SI swimsuit edition to be socially conscious, engage in political dialogue or magically find appeal in a model's religion or sexual orientation. The edition always was and still is about fantasy. That the fantasy devolved from a day at the beach to a sexual come-on does not make it any less fantasy. SI is not a political magazine or a platform for socio-political views.
It is not considered acceptable to value a woman for her appearance today, but don't let that political posturing fool you for a second. When couples choose a woman for donor eggs beauty, not intelligence or religion or anything else, is the number one characteristic desired. Men's sexuality is visual. That's biological, not social. Men will always look. Trying to make a swimsuit issue about politics or broaden the 'standard' of beauty by bludgeoning people with politically correct editing is like telling wolves they really should be eating tofu. Does not work.
It is also very off-putting. I'm mortally tired of being told how to speak, what is acceptable, what slang can be used, etc, etc. You cannot command what I think, or what I find attractive. Women in burkhinis are not attractive. Neither are slogans written all over your skin, or overt lesbianism, or being a jock. Quick test- let's go to the beach and line up a woman in a burkhini, one carrying a sign about rape and abuse, one with a sign saying 'lesbian' and one standing alone in a bikini and a smile. Who gets the first 'hello'? I rest my case.
I don't care if you think that's wrong, or 'bad', or sick, or unwoke, or anything else. It's reality, ordinary male-female relations. 77% of SI's readership is male, and I really don't think a swimsuit issue, no matter how political, is going to get women to suddenly think bikini babes are OK. SI is pushing away its core customers without expanding its customer base. They are also for sale, with the price having dropped 30%, from 150 to 100 million. With editorial policy as stupid as what they show in the swimsuit issue, I don't think the discount is enough.
Ted
Most of the US knows about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Si first did one in 1964. The concept began plainly enough- showcase modern swimwear on attractive models. Neither complicated nor particularly sophisticated. At a time when Playboy had existed for all of 11 years, and there were no Victoria's Secret catalogs or other compilations of swimwear, the swimsuit issue was a chance to see nice suits on pretty women without smutty overtones or nudity.
I first saw the swimsuit issue in 1972 at age 14. It had quite an effect on my adolescent mind, and while that effect has lessened considerably as reality overtook fantasy I still enjoy the annual swimsuit 'expose'.
What was once clean fun has gotten progressively more revealing, as noted by many writers and even the most casual of readers. Cheryl Tiegs first exposed her nipples in 1978, and since then the issues gradually showed more and more skin, to the point they approached softcore porn. Body paint was introduced in 2005, pictures became too exposing to be used in apps.
None of these changes have been necessary or even terribly welcome. The internet today makes it easy to see as many pictures of naked women as any person could possibly want to see in a lifetime. SI has made a mistake in trying to compete in providing titillation, rather than keeping things wholesome and appealing to more than prurience.
In the last 4 years or so, however, they have made an even greater mistake. The swimsuit issue has become a political statement. Having gone from swimsuits to semi-nudity, SI suddenly got all socially conscious and woke. Some models had #MeToo slogans painted on them. Athletes began to be models, then 'plus-sized' women, both in an apparent attempt to show that beauty has more to it than just, well, beauty. This year we get the socially conscious treat of the first openly lesbian model, because the sexual preference of the model must make some difference in how she is seen, right? To cap it all we have the first Muslim model in a 'burkhini', which is really just a head scarf attached to what used to be bathing clothes in the West in 1905.
Absolutely none of this is appealing. No one is buying the SI swimsuit edition to be socially conscious, engage in political dialogue or magically find appeal in a model's religion or sexual orientation. The edition always was and still is about fantasy. That the fantasy devolved from a day at the beach to a sexual come-on does not make it any less fantasy. SI is not a political magazine or a platform for socio-political views.
It is not considered acceptable to value a woman for her appearance today, but don't let that political posturing fool you for a second. When couples choose a woman for donor eggs beauty, not intelligence or religion or anything else, is the number one characteristic desired. Men's sexuality is visual. That's biological, not social. Men will always look. Trying to make a swimsuit issue about politics or broaden the 'standard' of beauty by bludgeoning people with politically correct editing is like telling wolves they really should be eating tofu. Does not work.
It is also very off-putting. I'm mortally tired of being told how to speak, what is acceptable, what slang can be used, etc, etc. You cannot command what I think, or what I find attractive. Women in burkhinis are not attractive. Neither are slogans written all over your skin, or overt lesbianism, or being a jock. Quick test- let's go to the beach and line up a woman in a burkhini, one carrying a sign about rape and abuse, one with a sign saying 'lesbian' and one standing alone in a bikini and a smile. Who gets the first 'hello'? I rest my case.
I don't care if you think that's wrong, or 'bad', or sick, or unwoke, or anything else. It's reality, ordinary male-female relations. 77% of SI's readership is male, and I really don't think a swimsuit issue, no matter how political, is going to get women to suddenly think bikini babes are OK. SI is pushing away its core customers without expanding its customer base. They are also for sale, with the price having dropped 30%, from 150 to 100 million. With editorial policy as stupid as what they show in the swimsuit issue, I don't think the discount is enough.
Ted
You rock Theo!!!
ReplyDelete