The SI Swimsuit issue and Title 9 - I was wondering why the

[hedgehog]

SI swimsuit issue hit such a raw nerve compared to every cover of Cosmopolitan and the like. Certainly, one can make the argument that every page of Vogue, whether it be an ad or article, is devoted to objectifying women. I think the SI swimsuit issue hits a nerve because the implied message is "sports are for boys, not girls". The swimsuit issue dates back to 1964, Title 9 to 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

What would be the reaction if SI added some male models to the issue?

[dipsydoodle]

1. Don't get none of this inane issue on the cover of The Old-Time Herald

http://www.oldtimeherald.org/

[WinkyDink]

2. Adding to a perceived problem is not helpful.

[Democracyinkind]

3. Isn't most of the shitstorm about it being posted in GD?

I've never saw a "Here's the new Cosmo cover" thread, but I take long breaks between posting. So I wouldn't know.

As to the objections to SI itself, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. As others have pointed out in other threads, there are some few SI covers that deal with women as athletes as opposed to simply using them as marketing bait. My impression is that they're still far away from (some sort of) parity in their portrayal of people of different genders, but the argument that there is some gradual change in the right direction seems reasonable to me.

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. My one and only comment on this entire issue;

[Ms. Toad]

5. The problem isn't the lack of male models

Wearing a skimpy bikini and posing in a sexually suggestive pose isn't a sport. You solve that problem by dropping the swimsuit issue - not by adding makes in swimsuits.