Sports Illustrated cover - practically porn?

[adigal]

Wow!! Hannah Davis, Derek Jeter's girlfriend, is wearing practically no bottom on the cover of SI swimsuit edition. Why don't they just stop the pretense and call this porn?? She has her suit pulled so far down, you can see everything but her actual genitalia.

This is a magazine that they have delivered to mailboxes, on the newsstands, and in doctors' offices. I'm amazed and wonder - how far will they go?? I could go on about objectifying women ad nauseum, but obviously, there are many women desperate to be objectified, and do it willingly, but for a mainstream magazine, this is a bridge too far, in my view. I would have hidden this from my teenage sons when I used to get them SI.

(And I wonder what Jeter's very conservative parents make of this - I have a feeling this is the death knell to this relationship since he seems to care so much what they think._

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2940598/Hannah-Davis-named-Sports-Illustrated-swimsuit-edition-s-cover-girl-year-one-magazine-s-revealing-shots-yet.html?offset=0&max=100&reply=76079723&jumpTo=comment-76079723#comment-76079723

[snooper2]

1. GREATNESS a SI thread this is just what GD needed after all the vax crack LOL

If someone posts the cover will it be alerted on?


Odds?

[adigal]

3. That's why I didn't post the cover....it is really close to porn!!! nt

[MineralMan]

8. No, it's really not close to porn.

Sorry, but it's just not. Her naughty bits are covered. No visible vulva; no hide.

[adigal]

29. Picture her with hair and how much woukd show

Almost everything is showing - and the point is that this is a magazine that is on grocery store newsstands.

[zappaman]

34. So nudity is porn?

A naked adult smiling into a camera is porn?

[adigal]

39. Depends on the purpose...this isn't art

It's to sell magazines

[zappaman]

41. So nudity is porn if it's meant to sell something?

Is that correct?

[adigal]

43. No, and I would explain it to you but I have a class

It has to do with intent. Thanks!!!

[zappaman]

44. Ok, enjoy the class and come back later to explain

How her being naked in that pose would be considered porn.

[adigal]

111. What Warpy said right below you

This is a picture from SI in the 70s maybe? Cheryl Tiegs is in a beach with a sheer on top foshnet bathing suit. (Any linkis about 9 lines long, but it's easy to find.) She isn't taunting, pulling her bottoms off, her expression is quite different, the mood of the photo is not come hither, sexual. It's healthy and beautiful.

This seems different. Is it porn? No, I didn't say the, but it is coming pretty close. And she is absolutely objectified. Who looks at her face?

[zappaman]

112. It's not even close.

So, now it's "close to porn" if the model has the wrong expression on her face?

[adigal]

116. Ok, how's this? If I am embarrassed for my teen to see most of her hairless vagina

when I'm buying milk at the grocery store, then it's inappropriate.

Nothing I say will change your mind. You think seeing everything but her lips is fine at the grocery store, delis, etc. I think it's gross. And almost porn.

[uppityperson]

123. Pet peeve of mine. The outer part is the labia. The vagina is the passageway between the

outside and the uterus. Vaginas are hairless, at least in humans. Labia have hair, unless that hair is removed. Unless you have a speculum you can not see the vagina. Even spreading your labia, you can only see the entrance to it.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

Now, about the magazine? I agree. This one goes over the line of being out in the open in the grocery store lines and those with partially covered covers.

[adigal]

125. Yes, sorry, labeled her labia and mons pubis wrong. I was going to look it up but had no time

But I think my meaning was clear, no?

And technically, her entire mons pubis is showing:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_pubis

(Maybe I'll get alerted now!!!)

[uppityperson]

148. no worries, thanks for posting this, I agree with you.

As I said, just my pet peeve. But thanks for the thread.

[3catwoman3]

194. Mine, too.

Thank you.

[pipoman]

338. If this is embarrassing to you, how can you watch teevee, go to the beach,or go to a movie with him?

The Europeans are laughing right now...

[TransitJohn]

478. Sounds like a you problem, not a Sports Illustrated problem. eom

n/t

[Orrex]

492. Why do you consider a woman's body gross?

I find that to be judgmental and sad.

[alp227]

497. Sigh...hasty jumping to conclusions again with loaded questions.

What the post actually said:

If I am embarrassed for my teen to see most of her hairless vagina when I'm buying milk at the grocery store, then it's inappropriate.

Nothing I say will change your mind. You think seeing everything but her lips is fine at the grocery store, delis, etc. I think it's gross. And almost porn.

Does it really mean "consider(ing) a woman's body gross"? Look at the nuance. One can think it's OK to look at the human body lustily while understanding that most people at Safeway or wherever don't want images of said bodies shoved in their face on others' terms.

[Orrex]

507. If someone wrote "I find pictures of old women gross," that person would be attacked.

This is true even if the person protested that these images were being "shoved" in their face.

But if the magazine features someone whom society-at-large has shockingly judged to conform with a certain standard of youth and beauty, then depictions of that body are declared to be "gross," and DU-at-large finds it perfectly acceptable to do so.

One can think it's OK to look at the human body lustily while understanding that most people at Safeway or wherever don't want images of said bodies shoved in their face on others' terms.

Unless someone is literally "shoving it in her face," then she can choose not to look at it. Instead, it seems very important to her that she inform everyone of how disgusting the finds the image.

Predictable, judgmental and sad.

[alp227]

513. Of course that person would be attacked. Because that person is full of crap.

It's normal to not want things like the SI cover shown publicly in an all-ages setting like a supermarket. I'm assuming "pictures of old women" you mean like, let's say this photo of Sec. of State Albright.

You can't equate the SI cover with any "pictures of old women", really?

[Orrex]

529. How about nudes of old women?

At least two things are at issue here: content and venue.
Some people object to the appearance of the woman on the cover. Those pepple are free to look away.
Some people object to the magazine being visible at the grocery checkout. Those people are free to look away.

If someone objected to similar placement of a magazine featuring a tasteful nude of a 75-year-old woman on the magazine's cover, that person would be attacked.

[alp227]

545. Nudity is nudity. Don't shove it in people's faces.

Keep it in either a museum or obscure corner of bookstore, not highly visible areas.

[Orrex]

552. Fortunately, no one is shoving it in anyone's face.

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Selling a magazine at a grocery store checkout is hardly "shoving it in people's faces."

[alp227]

556. Otherwise why would stores place those products in the checkout,

similar to chewing gum and candy bars?

[Orrex]

557. Are you offended by chewing gum and candy bars?

Do you somehow find within you the power to look away from those offensive commodities?

If so, then I suggest that you employ the same mental discipline to enable you to survive the magazine gantlet.

If not, then I suggest that you enlist the aid of someone able to navigate the checkout lane without over-reacting.

[alp227]

559. No, not what I said at all. I said that stores want those products visible for a reason.

SO YOU WILL BUY THEM! THAT was what I meant by "shoving things in your face".

[Orrex]

560. "Shoving in their face" is a violent, aggressive act.

In stark and undeniable contract, "making products visible for sale" is what every store does. If you have trouble with this, then you should go with my suggestion above and have someone else do your shopping for you.

Also, if you're trying to offer a measured and reasonable argument, you should drop the hair-on-fire hyperbole, since it's exactly the same language that Rush Limbaugh uses when he's crying about marriage equality.

[alp227]

561. OK, if "shoving in your face" is too rough, how about something more complex and specific.

I think when a grocery store shows raunchy magazine covers in the checkout aisle, it shows that the company doesn't respect its customers' sensibilities or community standards, by forcing raunch in customers' direct sight.

[Orrex]

563. "Raunch" is in the eye of the beholder

But if that's how you feel about it, then by all means tell the management of your local store. If your community has enough high-minded citizens to voice support for a puritanical policy, then I'm sure that you can have your preferences of censorship enforced. Other customers who object to displays of birth control and feminine hygiene products are likewise free goad the store into removing products that offend their sensibilities.

Alternatively, you can elect not to patronize that store that harms you so grievously. You have many options.

[alp227]

564. Bullshit (LOL, I used a raunchy word).

You can't compare objecting to sexual imagery to objecting to displays of feminine products. Shouldn't we acknowledge that an objective, universal definition of sleaze/raunch/obscenity exists? Most people would agree that a song like Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" or Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda" is raunch. Or the Seven Dirty Words (and some more) shouldn't be blurted out in a polite setting. While objecting to the display of birth control is taking it beyond what's necessary.

[Orrex]

566. You are mischaracterizing my point.

Either because you don't understand it or because you are dishonest. Which is it?

You can't compare objecting to sexual imagery to objecting to displays of feminine products.

Nor am I. Instead, I am comparing your declaration of offense and someone else's declaration of offense, both of which are rooted entirely in aesthetics. Why should a store be required to endorse your flavor of aesthetics and not someone else's? Frankly, the object of the offense (e.g., a magazine vs. contraceptives) is irrelevant; you're simply insisting that you should get your way because you say so, because you claim to be pursuing a high-minded goal. "For I know my works are right, and theirs were wrong."

Elsewhere in this thread it has been expressed that someone's teenaged daughter shouldn't be made to feel embarrassed by a checkout display. Fair enough. What if a teenaged son is made to feel embarrassed by the display of feminine hygiene products? You are free to argue about the source of the embarrassment, but you have no authority to declare that one is more valid than the other. Perhaps we should eliminate all products that might cause shoppers to feel embarrassment. We should get rid of bananas, bagels, hot dogs and donuts immediately.

While objecting to the display of birth control is taking it beyond what's necessary.

But why, specifically? Why do you get to declare what is and what is not "beyond what's necessary?" Maybe I don't feel that beer or 75 kinds of cheese are "what's necessary," yet my store stocks them. Why don't I get a say in "what's necessary?" For that matter, must stores only stock "what's necessary?" Can't they simply stock what people want to buy?

[NaturalHigh]

584. I guess I'm still trying to figure out...

why you get to decide for everyone what is "raunchy."

[NaturalHigh]

587. Well, they do have the Trailblazers.

[opiate69]

592. Heh.. I was just there Friday night...

Portland, that is.... cool town... but getting out of downtown sucks ass

[opiate69]

607. Ha! I'm in if'n yer in!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

626. Gross? Wow...I would get in trouble if I posted pics here of what I think is gross

lynchings
dead Iraqi's due to "Shock and Awe"

etc


dead children from drones, as well

[one_voice]

631. +1

Agree. The cover is far from gross...imo.

[Warpy]

90. This is soft porn

since much is left to the imagination. It's still porn, using a woman's body as an object of commerce, of gratification, of whatever. She's still just a thing to be used.

Might as well call it what it is. SI won't be hurting over it and neither will you.

[zappaman]

91. No it's not.

That's like just your opinion, man.

[ohheckyeah]

99. Can you hear

him screaming "get off my lawn"?

[ND-Dem]

303. i believe "he" is a "she". as are most of the posters saying it's porn. whereas their opposition

is mostly men, I believe.

[hifiguy]

107. Yep.

Heed the Dude.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. "this isn't art...It's to sell magazines"

Artists paint to sell paintings.

[CBGLuthier]

205. Not Art?

[titaniumsalute]

401. I like how you are the interpretor of art - thank you thought police

I buy and sell art. It is a business transaction. Just like buying a magazine.

[Adrahil]

157. Well, how many teenage boys....

do you think will use this issue for "reading material."

I don't actually consider this porn, but I do consider it objectification.

[zappaman]

158. When I was a teenage boy, I could "use" a Sears catalog or

A National Geographic or my imagination.

What's your point?

[Adrahil]

161. You know my point... But I'll oblige you.

The purpose of this cover it titillation. It's meant to be sexually provocative.

It perpetuates the idea that young women are valued for their sexual desirability.

Hell, this young woman even said, " "I am both shocked and excited to be this year's cover model. This has been a lifelong dream of mine and I feel so blessed to have this opportunity!"

Note that. Her lifelong dream was to be a sexual object. That says something about our culture.

[Adrahil]

315. This isn't about sex...

... It's about selling sexual desire ability of women as PRODUCT.

As women struggle to take their place alongside men ion LEADING out species, out culture still values women first and foremost for their sexual desirability.

Remember that Rush Limbaugh says that feminism exists so that unattractive women can get access to the main stream. That's the kind of thinking that fuels the objectification of women.

[Adrahil]

321. No the fuck it isn't .... And by the way...

I don't want this kind of stuff outlawed. That'd would be insane. I want our culture to develop to the point that women are not marketed and sold as sexual objects first and foremost.

You watch.... As Hillary runs for President, watch how many attacks from the right are about her age sexual undesirability. Nancy Pelosi endured the same kind of thing. So did Elaine Kagan. When is the last time a male politician was derided for being sexually undesirable.

This is the culture we are creating and reinforcing. The vast majority of us do it... Even many of us who consider ourselves feminists.

[Adrahil]

325. See... More of the same bullshit.

I dread my daughter growing up in a world where people think it's fine that young woman are valued primarily in this way.

[polly7]

328. Good points! nt.

[Adrahil]

335. Warren.... you need to a take a class on cultural analysis.

Seriously. Take a deep breath, and look around yourself. Look at commercials, television, film, music.

Then tell me that women are not sexually commodified in our culture.

As for men.... men have their own cultural issues. Men are judged on their perceived masculinity.... prowess in football is just one way men are measured in this way. It isn't quite the same as the sexual objectification of women, however. Women are sexually packaged for consumption by men. Men's masculinity is mainly displayed for comparison to other men, though women are encouraged, of course, to desire dominantly masculine men. That's not news. It's why Derek Jeter (perceived as very masculine, as a sports hero) is dating Hannah Davis (a swimsuit model). They are both "winners" in our dominantly constructed culture. She has a masculine man who is admired by other men, he has a woman who desired by other men.

Again, this isn't news. This is the way our culture has been constructed for 1000 years. The roots are traced back to at least the "courtly love" Chivalric culture which was all about desiring a woman possessed by a superior man.

[pipoman]

342. Women package themselves, men don't drive the market

On cosmetics, skimpy swimwear, spike heels, hair extensions, nail artists, or even lingerie. ...women do that. Humans (apparently with some exceptions) are sexual beings, always have been, always will be....

[Adrahil]

362. Yeah, none of that has to do with a patriarchal culture. Right. n/t

[pipoman]

369. Right....

Patriarchal societies have always been very conservative on feminine beauty. ..hair coverings, no makup, no skin, female ownership, etc. Prior to the feminist movement men wouldn't have approved of this. No, this has to do with women's freedom to express themselves how they wish....

[NaturalHigh]

476. I figured someone would use the "P word" in this thread.

P as in "patriarchy" that is. That's usually the buzzword that means it's time for me to tune out of the conversation because it's not going anywhere useful.

[Threedifferentones]

376. Adrahil, I share many of your misgivings about social hierarchy and sexual objectification, but...

They are both "winners" in our dominantly constructed culture. She has a masculine man who is admired by other men, he has a woman who desired by other men.

This is true, but it leaves something out, and that omission carries a serious implication: you neglect to mention that just as sports stars are "admired" by other men they are "desired" by many women, and that just as swimsuit models are "desired" by many men they are "admired" by many women.

Courtly love and the writings about it represent sexism perhaps in a more fundamental way: because only men were encouraged/allowed to write, only their longings are remembered. You really believe some plain looking servant woman never had the hots for the prince she would never be with or w/e? The plain looking poor girl's longing for a "superior man" is simply forgotten because she never got to write or publish it, but I still assume it existed even during medieval centuries.

The ownership of women that resulted in girls being passed from father to husband like property has been dead for decades now. At some point we must accept that our culture is also reflecting what the average woman wants, not just the average man.

Your post reads as if women have no part in maintaining this charade we call patriarchy, as if men are responsible for who we find desirable and women are not, and that is not how I see modern culture. Yea, it's called patriarchy, and the obvious implication is that it was created by the "daddys" of society for just their benefit. Fair enough, that's how it began, but it continues in a society in which feminism has claimed serious ground, and IMO that is because many women admire swimsuit models and dream about landing rich athletes as husbands.

[Adrahil]

419. I appreciate the thoughtful post.

Yes, women DO help maintain the patriarchy. They are, after living in the culture, and most people are not self-reflexive or critical of it.

We have centuries of tradition and cultural bias. The fact that women actively and enthusiastically participate in a culture of patriarchy doesn't mean that there isn't a a very real oppressive culture on them. In the same way, the working class Republican fighting for coporatism may feel they are fighting for what they "want," but it doesn't change the fact that they are victims of the very system they enthusiastically support and participate in.

But I think I've burned all the virtual ink I care to on this subject for now. Have a great day.

[hifiguy]

427. I couldn't have said it better if I'd thought about it for a month.

It is a bullshit ideological concept with no roots in anything remotely scientific, even within the loosey-goosey social sciences. Its meaning depends, as you cogently observed, solely on the individual using it, which means that it has no intrinsic meaning of its own. Jargonjabber of the worst and most sophomoric kind.

[Adrahil]

430. Nope.. I was just identifying that...

you're out of your depth on this topic.

You can think it's a "made up nonsense term," but in my view, that means you're just willfully ignorant.

If you can't even see the reality of sexual objectification, then frankly, there's no point in discussing this with you. It's like trying to argue about how to fix global warming with someone who denies it's happening.

[NaturalHigh]

491. I would dread my daughter growing up...

in a world of censorship and sexual suppression. In countries where that is the norm, women often end up being forced to wear burqas.

[adigal]

539. You are wasting your breath....very disheartening, that men on a liberal site

think this is ok as family viewing material.

[alp227]

498. One can be sex positive while against commodifying women.

...adopting some sackcloth, hairshirt, anti-lust dogma around the supposed evils of nudity and physical attractiveness, which was already outdated and reactionary 3 decades ago.

Being opposed to things like SI Swimsuit magazines does not mean believing that nudity is evil. It's not an either/or proposal.

[adigal]

538. I would like to see the research correlating that more acceptance of porn

Leads to more LGBT rights. You are really making this up as you go now.

What is happening is that the more covers like this are hailed by people as "sexual freedom," the more worried parents will see the left as "out of touch." Because thinking this cover belongs in a supermarket aisle really is out of touch. And then they go to the "values" party, even though they don't support 99% of what the right thinks. But as I feel now, if liberal men are fine with this, then I'm probably not a liberal, because for a young woman to have this cover as her lifelong goal, the showing of her mons pubis and almost her entire labia, is damn sad.

[NaturalHigh]

633. Anybody who switches parties because of a swimsuit cover...

is probably unable to find the polling place anyway.

[NaturalHigh]

616. You really think this will affect Hillary Clinton's campaign?

[LanternWaste]

393. I imagine many half-wits pretend it says merely one thing

"it says that..."

I imagine many half-wits pretend it says merely one thing rather than possessing the subtext of many different perspectives. Further, I imagine many idiots pretend that the one thing validates their bias.

Praise rationalizing easily-branded consumerism as progressive thought-- the simpleton loves it as such.

[Warren DeMontague]

420. Ah, echo-man wants to insult my intelligence.

Ah, echo-man wants to insult my intelligence.

If I'm a half wit but all my wit is said twice, wouldn't the two halfs of wit add up to a whole wit?

[Adrahil]

428. Nope, it just makes it worse! ;) n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

432. I imagine it's some sort of affectation, like wearing a fez or calling everyone "mac"

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2015, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Still, there are folks whose shtick works on DU - The Magistrate springs to mind - and then there are people whose shtick falls flat.

Lame and tired.

But when someone also pretty much instantly falls back on cheap insults and exceedingly weak attempts at character assassination elsewhere on DU ---otherwise known as "damn the facts, lets throw shit at the walls and see if it sticks ad hominem ad nauseum"

... That ought to tell you all you need to know about the water level in the "wit" tank, there.

[NaturalHigh]

189. "The purpose of this cover it titillation"

Uh, yeah. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

[Warren DeMontague]

191. So if someone finds me attractive on the basis of my physical appearance, that means

They are negating all other aspects of my humanity, in fact they are rendered incapable of appreciating any of my other fine qualities, like my impeccable wit, my meticulous attention to grammar, or my boxcars full of humility?

[Vattel]

200. Your post is useless without pictures.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. Oooh, you wish.

Actually I have a funny story about that, but.... nah, not here.

[Adrahil]

311. Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Get your undies unbunched. I'm talking about packaging womens' bodies as products to be consumed, with no regard for any other aspect of them. That's what he SI tits and ass... Oops, I mean "swim suit" issue does.

There is nothing wrong with finding someone physically attractive.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[titaniumsalute]

405. I live in South Florida

I take my two boys to the beach often (16 and 10). Most of the younger woman here wear bathing suits something like that. Guess what? After you see a few nice bodies walk buy I get back into my book. My kids splash around in the ocean for a few hours, build sand castles, wrestle on the beach, etc. No one makes a fuss, no one is harmed, and frankly no one really cares. I don't take my meat and play with myself. I don't go home and wank off from memories of some packaged goods I saw at the beach today. No one forced these girls to wear those bathing suits. But no one should really care either.

[Adrahil]

415. OK, you don;t get it. Fine. We'll move on.

I'll just keep up the good fight wherever I can.

[TransitJohn]

482. LOL at good fight.

Prudery is not something to be proud of.

[titaniumsalute]

485. What don't I get...humor me.

[NaturalHigh]

486. I guess you have a different opinion about the "good fight."

Most people I know don't consider the suppression of human sexuality to be a good fight.

[polly7]

195. Being in a bathing suit on Sports Illustrated does NOT mean she's always

dreamed about being a sexual object. Many people are just proud of their bodies, think the human form is a beautiful thing and have no problem showing theirs. We all have bodies and they're nothing to be ashamed of, no matter what shape, size or anything else. Why can't people just appreciate beauty without always thinking the worst? There was a thread about a 'plus-size' model here recently and no-one had a problem with her showing her body .... there were comments on her possible health issues and other things, but not that she was posing for a photo. What's the difference?

[Adrahil]

312. Who said anything about being ashamed?

This reminds me of the bullshit MRA argument that people, like myself, who are concerned with the sexual objectification of women are somehow prudes and that we want women walking around in burkas. That is not the case. This is about objectification. These women's' bodies are packaged and presented as products to be consumed. In that magazine, these value of these women is reduced to how sexually desirable they are.

That's just the facts of what is happening. I don't like it.

I hate it that my daughter has to deal with world that tells her nonstop that women are valued on the basis of being desired by men. It fucking sucks.

[polly7]

314. You said she'd always dreamed of being a sexual object.

I called baloney.

That is what my post was about and I elaborated on why she had other reasons for posing.

Many people are proud of their bodies, are not ashamed to show them off, and are not forced or co-erced into it. They make good money for it - a bonus. I'm a woman and find pictures of women and men alike nicely done - in any size, beautiful. I'm a people watcher and just appreciate the human form, the differences, the uniqueness of each indifidual. I love animals too - every kind and shape and when they're photographed beautifully - I appreciate that, too. Sometimes it's NOT about sex or exploitation. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the human form is art, when nicely done. It doesn't bother me a bit. I hope you teach your daughter the difference between real exploitation and the horrible problems many women DO face as compared to a woman willingly baring her body using her own free will.

Our female ancestors fought for the right for women to wear, or not wear whatever they like.

Maybe we could still be going to the beach like this!:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Adrahil]

320. You can tell yourself whatever you like....

It's still nonsense. "Swimsuit models" are sexual objects. She wanted to be one. She wanted to be a sexual object. Our culture tells her that sexual objects are valued.

This ain't rocket surgery.

[polly7]

322. That I just have always appreciated the human and animal form is pictures is

something I just tell myself?? No.

'Swimsuit models' are not sexual objects! They sell swimsuits, and occasionally pose for other reasons. Have you never bought a swimsuit? They're always modeled - how do you know what would look good on you unless you see them on a human form? Strange.

How do you know she wanted to be a sexual object??? My gosh, you think you know a lot about this woman you've never met. You sound worse than any man on this thread, so far I haven't seen anyone saying they're lusting over her. It 'ain't' rocket surgery to know we're all different and allowed to express ourselves any way we like - if that includes going nearly naked, so what?? Don't buy it, don't look at it. I doubt she'll care. I'm glad to have seen the picture. I appreciated her beauty - am I a pervert?

Did you know women in Africa and all of the ME now are being kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered? I think I heard that somewhere....

[Adrahil]

336. There is a difference between appreciating the beauty of the human form...

... and packaging and selling a woman as a sexual object.

I also appreciate her beauty. That's not the point, though, is it?

And yes, in the scheme of things, this may not seem like a big deal to you, but our young women grow up in this culture. My DAUGHTER grows up in this culture. It matters to me that she will be appreciated as a whole person, and not just a set of tits and ass.

I mean, other than her amazing body and the fact that she always wanted to show off her amazing body to millions of people, what is presented about this woman?

[polly7]

337. What is represented about this woman?

Freedom of expression ......... exactly what those before us fought for and were ridiculed and judged, just as you're doing here.

Many of us have young female relatives growing up in this culture ....... all of mine I've talked to about it are much, much more informed on all of it than I was. They know what real exploitation is and some do what they can to fight it by whatever means is available. Sex-slavery, child exploitation, bullying in real life or online that leads to suicide, and then all of the other horrors in poorer countries where women are treated as possessions and have absolutely no rights. They're strong girls who don't see themselves as victims and have no problem answering back to bad treatment from anyone, male or female.

That woman wasn't packaged and sold as a sexual object - you just see her that way. Strange that you feel you have the right to lecture and insult those of us who don't.

[tridim]

355. They are sexual objects to YOU, not me.

And yes, I'm a hetero male.

[Adrahil]

363. OK, Sure. Women aren't objectified in our culture. Gotcha.

[tridim]

366. Yes women and men are objectified in our culture, never claimed we weren't.

I simply stated the model on the cover is not a sexual object in my view, but she apparently is to you.

[adigal]

541. Ok, let's pretend you are right...then what is the purpose of the cover if not sexual

objectification?? I'm really curious. Is it to teach us about exercise that gets us healthy? Is it to sell a swimsuit? Is it to show the benefits of waxing? Is it to discuss the effects of global warming on farms like the one she is at?

If not sexual objectification, then WTF is the point????

I think what bothers me most about this thread is the complete denial of the purpose of this magazine, closely followed by the denial of any effects a picture like this being openly displayed in supermarkets, etc. would have on young girls and boys, all of whom are in the process of discovering who they are and how they fit in this society.

And with that, I am done. I think some of the people here are trying to flame bait the few women who see this as I do. And if acceptance of this in the supermarket line is liberal, then I am certainly not.

[prayin4rain]

544. I agree, this is an exercise in futility on this thread.

If you look over the responses though, it's only a handful of liberals who refuse to accept that, one, objectification is real, two, it has harmful effects and, three, these types of publications promote harmful objectification. I think most liberal men and women accept those three realities.

I also think nobody wants to feel like they're being called a weirdo, pervert, promoter of harm if they enjoy the picture, which is fair enough, too. Although, i don't think anybody has done this.

I think liking the picture is normal and natural. I think recognizing the harm of the over saturation and normalization of commoditized sexual images of young women is normal, natural, and responsible.

[adigal]

549. Yes, objecting to the commodification is being intertwined with objecting to the body or sex

I'm a teacher and an artist, my daughter is a photography student who shoots nudes, I'm not against the body. Bodies are beautiful. It the body as commodity and especially, women's bodies as commodities that I object to, and it appears, even here, that most don't see it.

So thanks for sharing your POV on this thread. I appreciated it.

[prayin4rain]

551. Anytime!

I always find that it's easier to be called an overly educated, delusional, jealous, hysterical, ugly, puritan, member of the taliban, who hates sex if there's more than one person being called the same things. Haha

[smirkymonkey]

567. +1000

Sorry you are having such a hard time with the usual MRA crowd. Unfortunately, they will never see anything outside of their own selfish perspective.

[RiffRandell]

217. You said that, not her and it's pretty damn insulting.

If her dream was to be on the SISI cover, who are you to judge? I'm happy for her, and I think Jeter is adult enough whereas his parents aren't going to disown him because of his beautiful girlfriend earning her own paycheck. What century do you/we live in?

It's far from porn and common among other magazines like Cosmo, Maxim, Men's Health, Esquire, FHM, Rolling Stone, Inked (go look at their 'Girl of the Day'; I dare you) and the latest issue of Women's Health with Britney Spears on the cover.

The model in the Carl's JR SB commercial was bullied by girls in HS, and her father is proud of her.

The commercial, which shows McKinney eating a hamburger while scantily dressed, now has more than 8 million views online. Two of the people who have seen the racy commercial include McKinney’s parents.

“He loved it,” McKinney said of her father. "He’s super proud of me and my parents have been behind me all the way.”

McKinney says she struggled with dyslexia and was bullied in high school.

“Just girls being girls and getting in a clique,” McKinney said of the bullying. “I didn’t have too many girlfriends and so they saw me as a target and they went for it.”

McKinney says she overcame being self-conscious of her curves and learned to embrace them, getting her big modeling break last year with an ad campaign for Guess.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/carls-jr-model-charlotte-mckinney-opens-bullied/story?id=28716270

Same old situation; girls will be girls.

[Adrahil]

313. That's a new one... Who am I to judge?

Have you READ DU? Judging is what we do! that's not a bad thing.

And yes, she DID say that. She wanted to packaged and sold as a sexual product. I think that's sad. I am sure she has more to offer the world that how sexually desirable she is. Something greater to aspire to.

And yes, it's all over out culture. That was POINT of my post in case it sailed over your head.

And don't worry. I don't find boobies upsetting. Nekkid girls are not a shock to me. I don't object to nudity, I object to objectification.

[RiffRandell]

472. It's only okay to judge models and make fun of their intellect, looks

(her eyes looked 'vacuous'), shame them with their SO's relatives and lie about what they said regarding the fact she is grateful for this career opportunity.

I didn't read that she screamed from the rooftops 'I want to be a sexual object!' but if she did, please quote her as from all the "facts" I've read about her I'm surprised she can form complete sentences.

[RiffRandell]

495. You mean Valentine's Day?

I'm taking cover...and busy.

Looking back, when I posted the issue last year on V-day my husband made it back very late that day from an international trip during a snowstorm.

He's the best!

[Warren DeMontague]

509. Yep. V-Day and SI-day and 50 Shades day, all in one week.

AKA TOTAL GD THERMONUCLEAR SHIT-LOSING CATASTROPHE

[RiffRandell]

577. Now you are seriously freaking me the fuck out.

Storms have been brewing between the East and West Coasts. Peace!

[hifiguy]

425. Attractiveness to potential mates is the spring

that drives the process of reproduction and Darwinian evolution and has for eons, in far more species than humans. Good luck ridding the world of that.

[BubbaFett]

378. hell

good housekeeping, redbook, all were good sources as a teenboy

[pintobean]

181. Not many

These days, teenage boys have the internet, where anyone can claim to be of age and see whatever they want.

[NaturalHigh]

237. Not my son...

As good parents, we do not allow any conversation about sex or any pictures or movies that show anybody less than fully clothed. Our teenage son, therefor, doesn't think about sex or unclothed people.

We don't let people wear those "I Love Boobies" bracelets in our house either because if they're not mentioned, teenage boys won't think about boobies.

That's why these Sports Illustrated "Swimsuit" Issue magazines are so evil. They corrupt young minds that otherwise would think only pure, chaste thoughts.

[prayin4rain]

241. The problem is the blatant obectification, not the nudity. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

242. I guess I don't get as worked up about it as some.

Frankly I don't see objectification as a bad thing. Men and women both do it, and the human race hasn't died out yet.

[prayin4rain]

246. I probably wouldn't get worked up over it either if i was a man. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

247. Great answer.

That tells me everything I need to know.

[Jesus Malverde]

293. Circumcision is a tried and tested method of getting them to stop.

If they stray.

[NaturalHigh]

295. Ouch! That's not a happy thought!

[titaniumsalute]

406. I love your post

Thank you!

[NaturalHigh]

457. Thank you for the compliment.

A little levity is good for the soul.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

222. How so?

[MineralMan]

36. Why would I do that?

Look...I've seen photos of naked women before and in real life, too. We're all naked under our clothing, and we all look more or less the same, with variations. It's not a matter of significant interest for me, frankly.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. I can assure you.....

That I look NOTHING like that woman under my clothes.

But I do have a bikini just like that. I wear it when I mow the lawn.




My neighbors never talk to me. I can't figure out why.

[MineralMan]

61. LOL!

I'm sure almost nobody looks like that young woman. Perhaps not even her.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. Well...I beg to differ.

There seems to be an endless supply of very attractive women willing to have their photos taken wearing little or nothing.


I however, look as if I swallowed a basketball, so there ya go!

[zappaman]

72. You'd be wrong.

I was once in Palau when both male and female models showed up for a commercial shoot.
Trust me, even in the AM after a long night of partying, these people look extraordinary.

[PCIntern]

121. You bet they do!

That's why they are on the cover of magazines and in ads and the rest of us aren't and never could be. I know people who are on TV who in real life are extraordinarily beautiful/handsome and when they are in commercials or shows, they look average or below average.

I once met Miss Liberia who was I believe Miss World or Miss Universe that year and she had the glow from her persona that the old paintings of Jesus have...she came to my office with Matthew Saad Muhammed who was the boxing champ at the time and he just disappeared into the background.

[PassingFair]

106. I don't like it staring me in the face at the checkout line.

No objection to people having it mailed to them or buying it from behind
a counter at a bookstore....

I don't want crotches in my face or my children's faces while I'm loading groceries
at Kroger's.

Common courtesy!

[zappaman]

113. I agree!

[alp227]

499. Or adults who want sexual imagery in their sights, on THEIR terms not others'.

Showing this SI cover in a general-audience setting like checkout stand at a grocery store is as bad as walking around naked. One can be sex positive while acknowledging not everyone else is so.

Basically, I don't care about people's sexual/drug habits, as long as they don't shove them in everyone else's faces.

[zappaman]

508. You can't be serious.

Right?

[alp227]

512. What do you disagree with me about? nt

[NaturalHigh]

594. The SI Swimsuit issue "is as bad as walking around naked"?

Stop! You're killing me!

[alp227]

595. No, I said SHOWING THAT ISSUE IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE SPACE (checkout stand) is.

What's up with DUers misrepresenting arguments they don't want to hear?

[NaturalHigh]

597. Actually I love reading arguments like those.

A hearty belly laugh is good for the soul!

Okay - so let me get this straight. Displaying the SI Swimsuit issue in a highly visible place is as bad as walking around naked. Tell you what, let's try an experiment. One person will pick up the SI Swimsuit issue, maybe even look through it in the checkout line. Another will walk around the grocery store naked. Let's see who gets arrested.

This entire thread has given me more laugh material than any stand-up comedian who ever lived! First, Warren photoshops the SI cover model with a beard, and now SI Swimsuit issue = walking around naked!

Oh my goodness! You're killing me here!

[adigal]

118. I agree...if I want to see 90% of a vagina, I'll go online

Or buy porn. I don't want to have to,protect my kids from it at the grocery store.

And those of you mocking our concern for children...I don't care what you think. You probably don't have kids who will be influenced by this.

[zappaman]

132. You can see "90% of her vagina"????

[MineralMan]

135. Borescopes. They're cheap these days.

You can look into anything with them.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0U00925206

[Adsos Letter]

206. Borescopes!

Haven't heard that term since my artillery days.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. That could be the tag line.

"Now, with 90% more vagina"

[OverBurn]

438. Kiddin"? No seriously are you kiddin'? Get out of here with that nonsense!

[Warren DeMontague]

268. "picture her with hair"

Okay, now what?

[NaturalHigh]

271. Dude, you're killing me.

I have cramps from laughing so hard!

[Jesus Malverde]

286. Lulz...nt

[polly7]

348. Omg .......

[msanthrope]

394. You won "DUzy of 2015," already. nt

[polly7]

410. Yep. I think that one's nailed down.

Sure glad I wasn't drinking anything when I saw it!

[titaniumsalute]

407. Oh shit no!!

I just scrolled and saw this...I laughed so hard the people in my office that I was having a coronary. Fucking FUNNY stuff my friend. Oh man my eyes hurt from laughing so hard.

[hifiguy]

424. Point, set and match

Winner of the contest, Mr. DeMontague.

[TeeYiYi]

489. Oh no you dih'nt!...

roflmmfao I'm crying!
You, my friend, are a great A'merkin...

TYY

[TransitJohn]

477. So you're picturing her with hair and you think others have a problem with objectifying women?

This is a dynamite way to get this thread remembered.

[hifiguy]

64. Agreed.

This is not porn. Not even close.

This should be interesting.

[FLyellowdog]

9. I agree! nt

[Katashi_itto]

92. Damn I need to research this. Anyone have a link?

[Orsino]

340. Well, you posted a link to a story that includes the photo.

I do appreciate the context, and would agree that it's kinda porny...but so is pretty much any SI swimsuit cover.

No idea why anyone is acting suprised now, decades after the practice started. This is among the tamest sort of porn available today.

[BubbaFett]

377. you don't know much about porn

[samsingh]

629. nothing like porn. (not that i'd mind that either). it's naughty

[MineralMan]

4. Of course it will be alerted on.

And then a jury will leave it. No vulva; no hide.

It will still be objectifying women, but won't be hidden on DU.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. apparently 'no vulva, no hide' is not how it works n/t

[MineralMan]

19. 4-3 to hide. Close.

As I said, I stand corrected. The next posting of it may not be hidden, though. That happens, too. And there will be another posting, I'm certain.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. it is just silly

she wasn't held down for those pics... she looks good (a little skinny for my taste). oh well...

sP

[MineralMan]

27. I don't know. I'm opposed to objectifying women.

I'm also opposed to puritanical censorship. The two things are often in conflict.

Given the instant access to real porn today on the internet, it's difficult to tell what will stay and what will be hidden. One thing is certain: SI will sell millions of copies of that cover photo. That is certain. Photos of nearly naked, slender 20-something women are readily salable, it seems.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. i'm not a big fan of objectification either

but the only reason it happens is that men will buy it... and it happens the other way, too... but certainly not to the extent we see expressed in these sorts of magazines. i guess i wish they would just drop the pretense and let them go naked and stop calling is a swimsuit issue, cause it ain't selling swimsuits.

you know, if we weren't such an uptight society hell-bent on hiding the human body, eventually this sort of crap would die out... maybe.

sP

[MineralMan]

40. I can see it now: The SI Annual Naked Woman Issue.

Actually, they wouldn't sell as many copies of that issue, I'm sure. As Paul Simon wrote: "They'd never match my sweet imagination. Everything looks worse in black and white."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. indeed...

and great song...

sP

[Warren DeMontague]

185. I suspect Paul Simon still has kept a smut stash or two.

"Kodachrome" notwithstanding.

[Throd]

506. Now all I hear is Bob Marley. "No vulva, no hide...no vuuuuulva, no hide"

Thanks, that'll get out of my ear never.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

525. glad I could help

enjoy that and feel free to spread it around... we'll have it on everyone before it's all said and done.

sP

[Warren DeMontague]

182. No Vulva, No Hide.

No Vulva, No Hide.

[zappaman]

184. Perfect!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Oh my goodness, that's pratically porn!

That vax crack showing, I mean.

[Ykcutnek]

11. Here's the cover. If it gets hidden, I'll be gone for a month.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. see you in a month...

the eternally offended will likely hide again...

sP

[zappaman]

20. Undoubtably. n/t

[hifiguy]

66. The predictability of some borders on

a quasi-Einsteinian law of the universe.

[Ykcutnek]

636. Miscalcuated.

It was less than two weeks.

[MineralMan]

21. A prediction make correctly.

Risky business.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

96. Hannah Davis goes down

south to Blackberry farm in Tennessee

[adigal]

129. What I like the most is the intelligent look in her eyes <snark/>

She looks so vacuous, poor thing.

[zappaman]

133. Meow!

I have no idea how intelligent she is, but I guess you do!

Do you think all pretty women are stupid or just her?

[adigal]

139. Look at her eyes, really. Do you see anything in there?

Haha! Maybe ther is, but this picture doesn't show it. She looks totally vacuous.

And I get it - you like naked mons pubis and shaved labias in magazines at the supermarket so you can look at them while you wait in line to buy your milk. You've made yourself clear.

[zappaman]

143. This cover doesn't bother me, no.

Then again, if I could see "90% of her vagina" like you apparently and magically can, I would have a problem with it.
Please go easy on us lesser mortals who weren't blessed with x-ray vision.

[adigal]

147. We know it doesn't bother you. :)

And I corrected my anatomical terms in another post. I used the generic for ease of understanding.

[woolldog]

176. You sound jealous.

You know nothing about her and should not be judging a book by its cover.

"Despite being a ranked athlete and top student who could have gotten scholarships for higher education, Davis made the decision to put off college and move to New York to pursue her modeling career immediately following graduation."

http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/st-thomian-featured-in-pages-of-sports-illustrated-1.1449709

Beauty AND brains!

[zappaman]

180. You picked up on that too, eh?

Cuz everyone knows models is stoopid.

[adigal]

262. Of course....because her bio says she COULD HAVE gone to college, she's brilliant! Rhodes Scholar

What do you expect her bio to say?

"Despite being disinterested in anything but fame and stripping, Ms.Davis didnt go to college."

Since if note that there doesn't seem to be much behind her eyes in a picture, Im jealous? Maybe it's her open mouth, models seem to think that makes them look sexy. She is lovely, but really, she still looks vacuous.

[woolldog]

332. The article indicates she was a top student.

And I have no reason to doubt that...Certainly not because of how you think her eyes photograph.

Green isn't your color, madam.

[adigal]

389. Are they going to say she's stupid?? And I have green eyes, most people love them, thanks!! Nt

[titaniumsalute]

409. Here's a whole list of vacuous models

http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/08/09/7-supermodels-who-went-to-top-colleges/

[adigal]

450. Wow!!! Seven of them!! And do you seriously think Princeton didn't take Brooke Shields because she

was already a star?? And the one who is/did go to Columbia after being famous. And probably some of the others???

Snort!

[woolldog]

436. So you think they're making up that she was a top student

and ranked athlete? Peculiar things to fabricate with little motive for doing so.

I find it ironic that you complain about "objectification" and yet you don't hesitate on drawing conclusions on a woman intelligence based on her looks--to objectify her in other words.

[adigal]

451. She probably was an athlete, she looks like one...my point is that any dinky little high school

and we are talking high school here, not university, can say she was a top student. That is not evidence - that is anecdote that she isn't as vacuous as she appears. And I am not objectifying her based on her looks - damn, I think Lauren Hutton was the most gorgeous woman ever, but she didn't have that empty look in her eyes that this woman does. I was going by her expressions.

[woolldog]

480. You absolutely are objectifying her.

You're claiming to be able to judge her intelligence based on her physical appearance (in this case her eyes). That's objectification.

Evidently She was a ranked tennis player and a good student which means she would've had her choice of attending some pretty good schools, and free at that.

But, by all means, continue to demean her because of her looks all the while calling yourself a "feminist" *snort*

[HappyMe]

333. Wow!

For somebody trying to make a case against this, you sure are using a whole lot of judgemental snark.

In order to lift up women, you are tearing this one down. You just sound jealous and judgy.

Je suis Charlie!

[ProfessorGAC]

346. Just Wow!

Your point now requires demeaning someone you never met about the level of he intellect, despite the fact you couldn't possibly know one way or the other.

That is some horribly weak sauce.

[mythology]

534. And Bill Frist thought he could see active intelligence and responses from a picture

He was just as incorrect as you are right now. This post should embarrass you in how poorly you are coming across.

[adigal]

536. Those who are misogynists here should be embarrassed, not me at all

How dare I call another woman out for being an object for corporations to use to satiate men's lust????? the horrors of it!!

I think the men in this thread, for the most part, have come across as VERY different than one would expect liberal men to act. Really shameful and disheartening. And the more they go after me, the more I wonder how they really view women.

And hey, the point of my thread is lost now. It's that this magazine is at supermarkets, in the aisles, and it's pretending to be mainstream, but it's not. I'm surprised some group hasn't started a campaign to get this out of supermarkets, etc.

If SI wants to use pics like this, they have every right, let's not pretend it's mainstream and not risqué.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. ...

[zappaman]

187. Look out!

[NaturalHigh]

166. She's apparently intelligent enough...

to get paid to let people take her picture. I would imagine this will be great for her career too.

[titaniumsalute]

408. That's an extremely shallow, low blow

[NaturalHigh]

164. I'm outraged!

(Not really)

[ND-Dem]

307. pretty girl, fake boobs, shaved pubes, swimsuit pulled down. not selling swimsuits.

[Jesus Malverde]

224. Vax crack

[MoonRiver]

316. Someone did. It was alerted on and locked

by a 4-3 vote.

[MineralMan]

2. I'm sure this will create a hugely long thread on DU.

But it will take posting the photo in the OP. Watch for the mega thread.

[EX500rider]

598. "I'm sure this will create a hugely long thread on DU."

Man you called that one right...it's so long i am having trouble getting it to load down to the bottom.....the Victorian attitudes on display here by some are quite funny.

[HERVEPA]

5. Your teen-age sons would have seen it anyhow.

But yes, the objectification of women is pretty disgusting.

[adigal]

7. I know he would have...but not with my permission

I have to go for a run and contemplate exactly what was the point of this cover.

Should take me about 30 seconds.

[Ykcutnek]

10. Takes me about as long to contemplate SI Swimsuit covers. nt

[NaturalHigh]

175. The point of this cover?

To sell magazines.

[snooper2]

22. I completely agree

disappeared

[EX500rider]

50. is the objectification of men also disgusting?

?fbf2daa044e08a86b24c9c38cd7501865a0e2373

[sendero]

52. No...

... it's only objectification if it is a woman

Meanwhile, the actual objectification of a man pic would show a man demonstrating his outsized earning capability or wealth.

[onecaliberal]

54. What national magazine did that appear on?

How many grocery stores and dr offices is that sitting in?

[EX500rider]

55. So it's only objectification if it goes national?

That picture appeared in a calender. How many were sold i do not know....does it matter?

[onecaliberal]

57. I am merely pointing out that far fewer people

See it you can't compare it to the SI magazine cover.

[Warren DeMontague]

188. Either it is "objectification" or it isnt.

Unless "objectification" is just a meaningless catch all term for "stuff that turns other people on, that bothers me"

But I'm sure that isnt the case.

[onecaliberal]

216. My point is my teen daughter isn't going to

Have that image shoved in her face everywhere. There are very scantily clothed women all over teevee & magazines. Even at the grocery store. It's not appropriate for all ages.
I don't see men in sexy underwear ads every 15 minutes when trying to watch television.
Objectification goes both ways. It just happen to men FAR less.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. I have no problem with more men in sexy underwear ads.

Although, really, anyone complaining about any kinds of ads on tv should buckle down and get a DVR, or insist that the cable folks give you one for free. It's 2015, man!

[onecaliberal]

350. Getting a DVR doesn't help when we are standing in line

At the grocery store. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

[Warren DeMontague]

417. Well thanks, at least, for that.

Other people are already demanding that I take classes to fix my doubleplusungood wrongthink, and the damn issue isn't even out yet!

[sibelian]

244. "It just happen to men FAR less."

Hnk!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sexy+man&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bVnUVMmeBInoaKnCgNAM&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=990&bih=633

Who are you talking to?

[F4lconF16]

282. Google search of specific term = all television, print, news

logic = fail

[sibelian]

585. That might be a valid criticism...

If there WERE any meaningful metric of the extent of anyone's objectification of anything. But there isn't. The amount of imagery can only be taken serious as evidence if there was some understanding of the scale of it's effect on society as a whole, which doesn't exist, for either gender.

"Google search of specific term = all television, print, news"

Wheeee! Goalposts OVER THERE today, hm? We both know that any arena within which the objectification of men could be asserted will become illegitimate in your eyes the moment it's asserted on the grounds that it's been asserted. Also that the kind of objctification of men and the extent to which it can be considered objectification will be deemed inadmissible by you on the grounds that it's men under discussion.

You do not proceed from evidence to conclusions, but from conclusions to conclusions. It's like a mixing desk in your mind. The significance of anything brought to your attention is filtered through your own pre-established perceptions and assigned whatever value is necessary to prevent it affecting your stance.

Your idea that "logic=fail" is sort of a mess, given that your position is essentially a feedback loop.

[Warren DeMontague]

606. And yet, one annual magazie issue somehow = ALL media, ALL of society's expecations for ALL women

As in, well, the very existence of the SI swimsuit issue means the ONLY thing girls are expected to do or are told to aspire to, is being on the cover of the SI swimsuit issue.

[MADem]

449. How many theaters will screen THIS opus??

Now, with nearly nekkid Strahan!!!!!

And you know that film, with plenty of production stills, will be covered ad nauseum in the US/SELF/People milieu as well as the entertainment sections of newspapers.

I think we're approaching the era where no one sex has the "lock" on slightly gratuitous/not-quite-sleazy characterizations.

There's a market for nearly nekkid people. Young people like these depictions, because they are attracted to these people, because they want to LOOK like these people and they model themselves after them, and because they think having those images around makes them cool. Old people like these images because many of them have active imaginations and remember their salad days.

Sexual attraction--and the marketing of it--ain't going away. It's why anonymous servers are so popular in repressive societies like Saudi Arabia.

It may be stupid, and I'm not buying, but I'd rather see magazines featuring nearly nekkid people than ones with people brandishing guns.

[F4lconF16]

65. Bit of a difference.

That's like claiming calling a black person "N-----" is the same as calling a white person a "cracker". There's thousands of years of oppression to contend with on one side, and thousands of years of oppressing on the other. Context makes a big difference.

Even your example is not a particularly good one. There's a huge difference between showing some stereotypically hot guys with their shirts off standing strong, and an all but nude picture of woman in a manner that is clearly designed to be seductive. Even with something closer, say a female firefighter who is also muscular, they are almost always presented in a very sexual manner, compared to the "strength" of the men. Yes, it is sexual, but in a totally different world from the way women are presented. And women are presented that way everywhere.

Yes, neither is great from an objectification standpoint, but comparing some handsome dudes half naked to the vast destructive misogyny of our world is rather disingenuous.

[zazen]

93. +1,000! n/t

[prayin4rain]

234. Agreed. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

240. Riiiight...

Double standards always work out great.

[F4lconF16]

274. It's not a double standard. it's history.

[NaturalHigh]

276. LOL...good one!

Oh wait...you were serious?

[onecaliberal]

352. X10000000

[MADem]

460. Oh, no--the "N" word comparison. Has this discussion jumped the shark?

Why is it that every argument about any perceived insult devolves to this? It's like a Godwin substitute, because that other "N" word is too overused on Ye Olde Internet, I guess.

That's "disingenuous," too, if you want to get right down to it.

This discussion has nothing to do with racist insults. It's a difference of opinion about how much clothing is not enough, and how a person is allowed to "look" at the camera depending on how much they are wearing.

No one is getting paid when the N word comes out in anger. This young woman made a very nice payday for that photo shoot and she will never want for a thing if she plays her boosted career right and doesn't squander her money. Those Magic Mike guys got themselves a nice payday, too; if they are wise they'll have a secure old age too--and no one called any one of them a racist name either.

Now, you can say it's "wrong" for this woman, or those men, for that matter, to not wear "enough" clothes in exchange for money, you can say they set a poor example, that their behavior is offensive, or whatever-- but comparing this view to racism is just ... off the mark. Gratuitous, really.

JMO, YMMV, but I will not be moved on this score.

[closeupready]

85. No, there's not enough of that.

[F4lconF16]

238. Lol

I think I'll burn my house down tonight to see if those men come for me

mmmmm

[mythology]

12. I wouldn't call it porn

My bar is would I be embarrassed to see that picture with my mom in the room.

[F4lconF16]

70. I think a better standard would be

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2015, 05:57 AM - Edit history (1)

"Would I be embarrassed to be seen enjoying looking at that picture with my mom in the room."

There's nothing wrong with nudity or sex in itself; it's the objectification and degradation of healthy sexuality that should embarass you. I wouldn't mind watching a movie with a sex scene in it with my mom in the room (though she probably would, lol), but I would mind watching the vast majority of porn out there with her in the room (actually, with her there or not, but you get the point).

If you mean just whether something is porn or not, I think my bar is whether its purpose is to display sexual attributes or activity and involves nudity. For instance, in my definition, some art would be considered pornography and vice versa. Most nude art, however, would not, as sexuality is not often the main focus of those types of pieces.

Edit: I'd also say there's two broad categories of porn that blend to some extent. Artistic or commercial. One is made to express something, the other is to sell something. You can have commercial artistic porn--it is a business after all. Unfortunately the vast majority of it is dehumanizing people (and many, many more women than men) for the express purpose of profit.

[mythology]

535. I guess that depends on how one defines the word enjoy

If you mean appreciating the general form of a human body that is in shape, I'm fine with that if my mom is in the room. If you mean seen with obvious arousal, sure, that would be embarrassing, but that can happen without the picture (thankfully I'm no longer a teenager so that's less of a problem).

I generally speaking avoid porn, but that's mostly because I've found what I've seen to be boring. I haven't thought about it long enough to know if that's because I find it dehumanizing to the people in it (I agree with you that it's worse for the women) or because the act of putting a camera in there means lots of uncomfortable looking positions, and since it's geared towards men it involves very little reciprocity in terms of the woman's pleasure. I have very limited experience with non-heterosexual porn or porn that would be considered artistic as I pretty much gave up on porn so I don't have an opinion of any meaningful sense on those.

[zappaman]

13. "Close to porn" LOL.

You haven't seen porn I take it.
If that bottom was not there, would it be porn in your eyes?

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. This will not end well.

That said: I'm not really sure that women are "desperate to be objectified"; we live in a society that (still) very much tells women that they're supposed to be pretty, to be ornamental, that they have to wear makeup and high-heeled shoes and remove all their body hair and generally focuses on female appearance to a degree and extent that's honestly rather absurd--read pretty much any magazine article about any prominent woman in any field; odds are the interviewer will tell you what she's wearing in the first paragraph. You'll also notice they generally don't do that with men. And then there's stuff like this. If women are happy to be objectified, it's because we live in a culture that tells them they're supposed to be objectified (and also the women modelling for Sports Illustrated are getting paid for it).

[adigal]

32. Agree 100%

[F4lconF16]

67. +1 well said. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

264. And who creates the culture? The people who comprise it.

51% of whom, are women.

This idea that everyone is being helplessly programmed by spooky forces (except, of course, for the enlightened few who think they are tasked with warning the rest of us off the brainwashing) is fucking goofy.

[F4lconF16]

287. And the past 2000+ years of oppression don't matter?

I'm sure you'd also love to tell a PoC that PoC are at least 13% of the problem with racism?That the Native Americans were 17% of the culture of genocide of the 1850s?

[Warren DeMontague]

288. No, I dont believe a woman in a bathing suit on a magazine cover equates in any fucking way, shape,

Or form, with "Racism and oppression", for one.


Yes, the trail of tears and a risque bikini pic. TOTALLY the same.

[NaturalHigh]

289. I kind of doubt that Hannah Davis...

who will probably be one of the most recognizable people in the country for a while after this, feels terribly "oppressed."

[Warren DeMontague]

290. If you dont hate the SI swimsuit issue, you support stuff like lynching.

That particular idea-fart got a lot of air time, last year.

[NaturalHigh]

292. Yeah, I never could quite connect all of those dots last year...

but it was interesting reading. I don't think it was any more bizarre than the "opening doors for women is (benevolent) sexism" flamefest, though.

[RiffRandell]

418. Yeah, that and keeping a tally on the amount of recs

given to threads depending on opposition/support of the issue, because it just had to become a contest.

[Warren DeMontague]

421. Oh, they're RAMPED up for this year. Ready. Damn issue isn't even out yet.

I expect to see a lot of names I've never seen post before, with signup dates like "August 2012" ... mysteriously appearing out of the woodwork.

[polly7]

426. LOL!

I wasn't here for that thread, but sure enjoyed it when I got back. Love your pics. I did see the rec counting, naming and shaming

[RiffRandell]

496. Thanks hon!

So glad to see you back. I've been quite busy caring for an elderly neighbor a few hours a day.

Horrible person that I am.

[polly7]

532. I missed all the funny, brilliant people.

I hope your neighbour is doing better, you're an angel for helping.

[Warren DeMontague]

520. oh busy busy busy

it's going on your permanent record!

[betsuni]

527. Fishing is time consuming, isn't it?

Luckily bait is pretty cheap.

[Warren DeMontague]

528. I find fishing boring.

Like, knitting socks level boring.

[betsuni]

530. Oh, Captain Ahab, I doubt you find fishing dull.

The great white whale is, like, obsessing you.

[Warren DeMontague]

568. No, actually, you've got it backwards. And someone needs to break the news to her

that I'm not available.

[RiffRandell]

579. The whale knows.

I saw Orca at the drive through with my sisters when it came out.

I think they have memories like elephants.

[polly7]

533. LOL, I couldn't have added anything more to that thread if I'd tried, still makes me laugh.

and I think my record's so bad already with some it's been locked up in the 'worst of the worst' drawer.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

But, whatever .... go bad or go home, right?

If you don't want to end up in the same, you'd better shape up, Mister. Shame ... putting all that hair on that nice lady. I swear you're going to choke someone to death some day!

[pipoman]

349. For most of that 2000 years this woman would be outcast as a whore

At least, and possibly killed or mutilated for exposing herself like this....this is progress....careful what you wish for....

[prayin4rain]

385. Yes, we should just be thankful we're not subjected to

unspeakable violence and simply accept middle aged men's increasing fetishization and objectification of "barely legal" women in our society, without comment. Boys will be boys. Ugh.

[pintobean]

390. She's 24. That's not "barely legal".

She has the right to choose what she does. She decided to do this photo shoot.

[pipoman]

392. Utter nonsense

No body here is "barely legal"....no, some want it both ways....freedom. ..but not too much....

[prayin4rain]

413. NOBODY has implied she should not be free to pose for

the picture, or that its sale should be banned.

[pipoman]

414. No, there sure are a lot hereabouts

Who proclaim their complete progressiveness, feminism and liberalism chastising her and those who appreciate the photos, accusing those who are supportive of being conservative.

[prayin4rain]

448. Yeah, get in line, I've been accused of thinking like the

TALIBAN because I've expressed concern over what I consider to be the over objectification of women in our society. I was told on another thread that i OBVIOUSLY didn't care about young girls being burned to death for going to school, because i was supporting the idea that some women wear burqas by choice.

I have no desire to chastise her, or anyone who enjoys looking at her photo. It is the prevalence of these types of photos and the DEGREE to which the message that women are for sex is promoted in our society. No one individual or instance concerns me, it's the culmination and saturation of it that makes it harmful.

[NaturalHigh]

615. "I have no desire to chastise her, or anyone who enjoys looking"...

Really? What have all your posts in this thread been about, then?

[prayin4rain]

624. If you click the hyperlinks in this site

it will take you to the studies that have been conducted. http://www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about/faqs/

I don't know how many different ways I can explain the point of my posts in this thread.

Moving forward, if you would please ignore my existence on DU, I will pay you the same favor. Thanks!

[NaturalHigh]

625. Okay, I don't think I'll click on that link.

It's very ironic that you say you don't mean to chastise anyone who enjoys looking at that picture, but then hawk a link titled "Lose The Lads Mags" in the same thread.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Ummmm.... I see skin but no genitalia or even nipples. Not porn (nt)

[bhikkhu]

204. Here's porn then:

[Nye Bevan]

214. Of course there is one rule for concealed female genitalia and another for stone penises.

The double standard simply sickens me.

[MineralMan]

16. I stand corrected. The Photo OP was hidden.

Will someone post another? Better Believe It! Counting down...1...2...3...

[adigal]

25. I didn't post the picture nt

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, I know. You did help us find it, though.

Pretty much the same thing, I think. A link's just a click away, isn't it, then?

[snooper2]

26. I've got four, too much risk for me, your TURN!

[MineralMan]

28. Not my thing. I'm an old man.

I remember a few mostly naked young women from my more youthful days. They haven't changed much.

[NaturalHigh]

173. Luck of the draw when it comes to juries.

Perpetual outrage sometimes bubbles over at different times of day.

[hunter]

24. I seem to remember the debate last year degrading into shaved / unshaved.

I think I'll be avoiding these threads.

In a better world the SI swimsuit issue would have men and women of all shapes and sizes and all ages modeling swim wear.

Myself, I like to swim naked.

[MineralMan]

30. No photos of you in your birthday suit, please.

They'd be hidden right away. Oh, wait...I'm thinking of photos of my own, decrepit, wrinkled body. Never mind.

[msanthrope]

102. I would never hide that MM!!! nt

[MineralMan]

134. The situation will never occur,

I assure you.

[tridim]

31. I don't consider the human body porn.

It's a work of art.

[adigal]

35. In a different context but now when used to sell sports

My daughter is a photographer and shoots nudes in college. They are tasteful and don't smack of gratuitous flashing of body parts for profit.Huge difference between this and art and anyone who wasn't being disingenuous would admit that.

[F4lconF16]

79. I think you make a good point.

The human body is being used to express something in one, and commodified in another.

[onenote]

117. If your daughter sold the photos she took (or paid the models) would that make it porn?

If her photographs appeared in a magazine would they suddenly no longer be art?

[zappaman]

38. Exactly. n/t

[FSogol]

51. I agree. Nudity does not = porn. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Yeah

what you said.

[AngryAmish]

37. Every year there is some goofy SI outrage around here.

Willy hears you, Willy don't care.

[LeftinOH]

46. Close to looking like a Barbie doll's crotch...

..where's the [insert euphemism here]?

[Auggie]

47. This is exactly the reaction SI wanted

[Rex]

48. Outrage! Outrage I tell you! I am outraged that people would be outraged by this outrage!

Ah DU and the regulars that keep me entertained with their replies.

[Autumn]

53. Is this one different from the SSI last year? I'm not seeing the outrage!!!!

Where is the outrage???? I want the outrage spread all over DU!!! I want this to be locked by Skinner. Now!! Not one alert has been sent on this.

[Rex]

56. Outrage! I am now outraged that this has not been alerted on yet!

Outrage Skinner! Outrage! I am so outraged that I am shaking with inrage...er...enrage!

[hifiguy]

71. Don't do a Walt Starr, Rex.

Unlike him, you'd be missed.

[Rex]

75. THAT'S IT I'M DOING IT!

NOBODY IS GOING TO HOLD ME BACK! HERE WE GO! ANY MINUTE NOW! A ONE AND A TWO! BABY STEPS!

[hifiguy]

77. LoL!

[zappaman]

74. Maybe if you weren't so busy rolling around in chemical waste dumpsters

You'd have time to alert.

[Rex]

78. Are you hinting at denying my right to roll around in waste dumpsters!?!

THAT'S IT! WHERE IS MY GUN, I'M WALKING AROUND WAL-MART! OUTRAGE!!!!



I hear Obama is against polio, impeach! Impeach!

[zappaman]

81. I'm just saying if you keep it up

You might want to move to Denmark.

[Rex]

88. Yuck Face can't fly.

TSA said he ran through the isles on a plane, nekked, once...and then there was that other time he dressed up as Batman and chased around the 'bad guys'.

[hifiguy]

69. Ain't that the truth, Rex?

I second and endorse your

Religulous psychotics are crucifying people and turning human beings into tiki torches in the Middle East and goofballs in our very own USA are trying to deny same sex couples the right to marry despite court decisions to the contrary and people get worked up about THIS.

Priorities, people, priorities.

[Rex]

73. To pretend that Obama is all hunky dory with ISIS, now that he brought up

Jesus and the Crusades - is insane IMO. Pure fucking insanity! Obama if he can, will kill every last evil motherfucker in ISIS with our military!

[F4lconF16]

86. You know, it may not be a priority to you, or even perhaps a particularly pressing issue

compared to many of the other massive problems women face here and around the globe. But it is very symptomatic of the wider issues, which is why many object to it.

People have a right to get "worked up" (read: legitimately angry at a massive corporation commodifying women's bodies for profit) about any damn thing they want to.

[hifiguy]

89. If the model was forced to do it against her will

you might have an argument. She wasn't forced to do i and was, I am sure, compensated very handsomely for her time. Her body, her decision, her life, her choice. Unless you think she shouldn't have that choice.

[F4lconF16]

94. You're completely misrepresenting what I posted.

I never once said she shouldn't be allowed to do it. I said that people can (and imo, should) get angry about it. It's not up to you to determine what's a priority for others.

We're allowed to disagree with things we don't like. I wish there was less objectification in the media and in our culture; doesn't mean I want to shut down SI. Same reason porn is still legal, yet I find it disgusting (the vast majority, anyways). I also think hate speech is wrong, but I support the right of the KKK to publish whatever racist piece of tripe they come up with next. Pretty simple concept, really. You can support the right to do something without supporting the act itself.

[hifiguy]

97. A reasonable response.

Thanks for being logical and logically consistent.

[F4lconF16]

110. No problem! I usually try and fail miserably :P

Thanks for the discussion.

Edit: oops, awkward. Wrong smiley from my stupid phone

[Warren DeMontague]

199. Yep, and then there are those of us who think hand-wringing over sex and depictions of nudity or

physically attractive people is ridiculous, who think that there is nothing wrong with people finding other people phyiscally attractive on the basis of appearance or superficial characteristics, that magazines showing beautiful women (or men) aren't inherently "objectifying" (whatever that, actually, means) or negative and in fact are a positive good, an expression of some of the things that are great about our humanity, and also an indicator that our society (most of it, at least) is getting thankfully less uptight about sex and sexuality--- not coincidentally dovetailing with greater social acceptance of LGBT folks, etc.

and guess what? our opinions are "legitimate", too.

[prayin4rain]

239. Yep, you're entitled to think the insidious and systematic obectification

of women is a positive thing for society.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. even better, I'm entitled to think "insidious and systematic objectification" is just what happens

to some people's hard-wired western religious sex-guilt when they filter lame-ass concepts like "lust is bad" through an overpriced sociology degree.

[prayin4rain]

257. It was a reasonably priced psychology degree, actually.. ...

although, i did enjoy the sociology classes i took.

[Warren DeMontague]

258. To me, at this point, I suspect it really depends on the ROI.

I enjoyed those classes, too, and the Eastern Philosophy ones.

But now I'm a practical chappie. I wish I had been, more so, back in the day, but I was too busy smoking fat joints at Itchycoo park.

[prayin4rain]

260. Sometimes I wish I could be more practical, pragmatic at least,

but idealism will always be my first love. I can't turn my back on my first love.

[NaturalHigh]

265. When taken to the extreme...

idealism becomes fundamentalism. It's interesting that the far right and the far left have such similar views about sexual topics.

[prayin4rain]

267. "It's interesting that the far right and the far left have such similar views about sexual topics."

Agreed, +10000.
Luckily, most liberal men that I know are sensitive to the level of objectification women in our society face. They've actually taken the time to educate themselves on the issue and are able to distinguish it from simple sexual attraction.

[NaturalHigh]

269. Is there somewhere we can go to get this "education"?

I mean there must be some sort of camp or something, right? All this thinking for ourselves and making up our own minds stuff will lead to anarchy!

[hifiguy]

422. There is, of course, a correct way to think handed down from on high.

And you're not supposed to question it. Even if it can't be verified by science. Even if it can be cast into doubt by real science. Especially if it can be disproved by the methods of real science. In fact, it's wrong to apply something as human-made as science to dare to question truth handed down from on high. You can see where this line of thought leads, and in one big goddamn hurry - the same mental processes, and I use the term loosely, as the fundys. Bad mojo and it amazes me to see self-professed lefties fall into this obvious trap, but time and again they do. This kind of thinking is so bad it doesn't even deserve the label "wrong."

Anything worth seriously thinking about which isn't purely aesthetic - art, music, poetry - should be subject to analysis via the scientific method. We know it works. The scientific method underlies modern medicine, transportation, and life itself as we know it. Science flies you to the moon and back. Belief flies you into buildings, real or metaphorical.

[prayin4rain]

494. There are many studies that have applied the scientific

method to study the objectification of women and found harmful effects.

[hifiguy]

522. When you can get to correlations

much less behavioral causation in the controlled, peer-reviewed sense physical scientists must answer to get back to me. What you propose is disturbingly close to thoughtcrime. Anyone with an ounce of brains can manipulate the loosey-goosey standards of social science with carefully phrased questions.

I have refuted MacKinnon's bullshit to Harvard professors and won.

[prayin4rain]

537. I'm unaware of any studies applying the scientific method conducted by MacKinnon n/t

[BubbaFett]

379. Best. Answer. Ever.

[NaturalHigh]

259. I'm entitled to think that?

Cool! Thanks! Objectification is great for men and women both. It's commonly referred to as sexual attraction.

[alp227]

503. No, sexual attraction and objectification are way different.

Objectification reduces the person to sexuality. Sexual attraction maintains humanity. I'm tired of people conflating the two to justify the commercial corruption of healthy human sexuality.

[NaturalHigh]

582. If it's okay with you, I'll determine for myself...

what is healthy. Thanks kindly.

[alp227]

502. Eat that strawman.

hand-wringing over sex and depictions of nudity or physically attractive people is ridiculous, who think that there is nothing wrong with people finding other people phyiscally attractive on the basis of appearance or superficial characteristics,

Y'know, people's minds are way more complex than you frame 'em to be. There's a difference between healthy sexual attraction and the type of commercialized sexuality peddled by SI.

[Warren DeMontague]

510. Thank heavens we have people to determine for us what constitutes "healthy sexual attraction".

[alp227]

511. Not just religious.

http://www.yourtango.com/experts/dr-perrin-elisha/healthy-attraction-or-objectification

Guess what? The real world doesn't meet everyone's fantasy standards. The real world contains people who determine what real science is, which is why creationism and GMOphobia are laughed at by thinking people, for instance.

[Warren DeMontague]

514. Well if Dr. Perrin Elisha, Aspen Psychiatrist and Therapist says it's true, it MUST be!

http://www.depththerapy.com/about.aspx

• Psychoanalyst from New Center for Psychoanalysis, present
• PhD in Clinical Psychology at Pacifica Graduate Institute, 2006, Carpinteria, CA.
• MA Transpersonal Psychology, Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, 1999, Palo Alto, CA.
• Bachelor of Arts in Biology, 1996, UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA.
• Certified Massage Therapist/Holistic Health Care Practitioner, UCSC, 1997.

Anyway, no, not just religious: People who have taken their hard-wired religious lust-guilt and filtered it through expensive liberal arts educations, too.

You're honestly comparing people who find women in bathing suits attractive to creationists? I seriously hope you limbered up before attempting THAT fucking stretch.

[alp227]

516. One can find women in bathing suits attractive and oppose the commodification of such.

Seriously. I've read through all your "arguments". They're garbage, misrepresenting the intents of the critics of the SI cover. Why can't you address the tough, nuanced realities you've been evading all this time?

I thought being progressive was about seeing the nuance in issues instead of reducing everything to simpleton, misleading one-liners.

And no, i did not compare "people who find women in bathing suits attractive to creationists". My point was that an objective meaning of healthy sexuality exists, just like any type of scientific, evidence-based theory.

My goodness. I can't believe the poor reading comprehension of many on this board.

[Warren DeMontague]

517. So if the same woman is on the beach in the same suit, it's okay to find her attractive.

If she's on the cover of a magazine that is being sold for 5 bucks, it's not.

I can't figure out any other way to parse this incessant axe-grinding around "commodification". There isn't any nuance- There are people who are pissed because a magazine with attractive young ladies in bikinis hits the newsstands every year around Valentine's Day. That's the only "tough reality" here.

an objective meaning of healthy sexuality exists - yes. As long as everything involves consenting adults. That's the objective definition of healthy sexuality. Period, full fucking god-damn stop.

And my definition of "healthy" doesn't include obsessively finger-wagging at people that finding Sports Illustrated models attractive is "unhealthy".

[adigal]

542. That's what is so ridiculous about his responses

He misrepresents what we say, and then throws a straw man into the argument. Then some hero- worshippers show up to tell him how smart/clever he is.

These responses aren't like any liberal men I know IRL and make me wonder what the guys so vociferously defending this cover as standard fare and perfectly OK are threatened by? Women demanding equal treatment? Women not posing for their enjoyment anymore?

When someone can only mock you for an argument without adding any facts or evidence or perspective or history, they have nothing. That's what I've seen here in many of these type of responses, sadly mostly by males, in this thread.

[alp227]

562. And it's a fucking SHAME he's allowed to host the main forums. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

608. "allowed"? I signed up.

There's a fucking litmus test for true liberalism that one has to hate the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition?

On what planet?

[Warren DeMontague]

614. You know what you should do? You should go to admin and demand that I be taken off of the

hosting rotation immediately- after TODAY.

Trust me, on this one, you can't lose!

[Orrex]

565. Ah yes. The ol' "no true Liberal" argument. Well played.

These responses aren't like any liberal men I know IRL and make me wonder what the guys so vociferously defending this cover as standard fare and perfectly OK are threatened by?

"Threatened by" is a red herring. It's entirely possible to object to a bullshit argument without feeling threatened in the slightest.

Women demanding equal treatment? Women not posing for their enjoyment anymore?

Do you suppose that the woman on the current cover is posing solely for men's enjoyment? I rather imagine that she'll be well compensated for her time. She probably made more from that cover and the collateral benefits than my coworkers or I will make in an entire year at my job. If she's being exploited, then what the hell is happening to us?

[melman]

612. Aren't you the one who called the model stupid?

Just checking.

[Warren DeMontague]

609. Your definition of "healthy sexuality" is not objective, or science-based, it's a completely

subjective opinion.

My subjective opinion is that healthy sexuality is that which involves consenting adults, and if everyone is a consenting adult it's their own damn business.

[adigal]

122. An intelligent response! There is still some intelligence here!

And not just mockery and snark.

[NaturalHigh]

632. Is this one of those...

whoever agrees with me is a genius, whoever disagrees is a moron filled with mockery and snark situation sort of thing?

[kentauros]

558. Imagine how worked up DU would get

if Heavy Metal was as popular as Sports Illustrated, considering that it comes out bi-monthly

[TampaAnimusVortex]

635. We Must Do Something! Harrumph! :)

[LittleBlue]

49. Not porn at all. She looks great, btw

Swimsuit models commonly pull their bottoms down near dangerous levels.

Jeter is a lucky guy. Her body is a work of art.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. No. Not porn.

[truebrit71]

59. No. Not even close, but thanks for the link to the Daily Heil....

....a well-known British fish wrap that specializes in grainy photos of celebrity nip-slips whilst sanctimoniously pontificating about the lowering of cultural standards in the country coupled with a healthy dose of right-wing immigrant/euro bashing....

But by all means, let's focus our outrage on a photo of a really hot chick (mostly) in a bikini on the frontcover of a magazine...

Well played...

[Tom Ripley]

62. That would depend on if she is pulling them on or pulling them off

I know porn when I see it
Trust me.

[AgingAmerican]

68. Wait, huh?

Where's the 'sarcasm' tag?

THAT is NOT 'porn' or anything remotely near porn.

[gcomeau]

76. Oh noes! Bare female skin!!!! Think of the children!!!!

Sigh...

[bigwillq]

80. So women in bathing suits now equals porn?

Not porn.

Anything in SI Swimsuit can be seen every summer at the beach. I don't understand what the big deal is.

[AgingAmerican]

95. Yeah, it has for a while now

Kinda pathetic....in a religious right sort of way.

[adigal]

120. If she showed up tugging her bottoms down like that in NJ

Someone would call the police.

False equivalence, comparing a regular bikini like most young women wear to this.

[bigwillq]

142. Thank goodness I don't live in NJ

At CT beaches, I often see both men and women pull up/down their bathing suit bottoms so they can get some sun on that area of the body.

[Orrex]

178. Maybe she's putting her bikini bottoms on

That is, maybe she's actually covering up...

[msanthrope]

395. You know....you need to visit some of the NJ nude beaches. It might do you good. nt

[HappyMe]

397. Also go see what goes on at night

at the Jersey Shore.

[msanthrope]

400. At any Jersey rest stop, friend.....nt

[mythology]

540. To steal from one of my favorite shows

LORELAI: Rory, I love you. I would take a bullet for you, but I would rather stick something sharp in my ear than go to the Jersey Shore with you.

RORY: Fine.

LORELAI: I’d rather slide down a banister of razors and land in a pool of alcohol than go to the Jersey Shore with you.

RORY: I got it.

LORELAI: Don’t stop me I’m on a roll. I’d rather eat my own hand than go to the Jersey Shore with you. Ooh, I’d rather get my face surgically altered to look like that lunatic witch lady with the lion head than go to the Jersey Shore with you.

RORY: Would you like me to drive so you can continue your diatribe

LORELAI: Would you? Thanks. I’d rather cut off my head and use it as a punch bowl than go to the Jersey Shore with you.

[fasttense]

82. At least we know she shaves her pubes off.

Something I could have lived my entire life without knowing.

Oh well, the poor girl only has her looks to exploit. You know if some uber rich capitalist didn't make money off of these half naked girls, then we wouldn't have to be exposed to them.

[F4lconF16]

291. You know, I've had a couple of model friends.

One was a pretty decent human being and the other was one of the smartest people I've known. Those are real people with a whole lot more to them than their looks.

[fasttense]

344. Perhaps, but why exploit your looks when you could exploit your intellect?

You would only chose to exploit your looks if you can NOT find a job using your brains. OR, as in our dysfunctional capitalist society, looks are worth more than brains. A very sad fact.

[MineralMan]

359. Some people manage to do both.

Looks and brains are both assets. Looks are a very short-term asset, though, while brains are pretty much good for most of a lifetime. For the tiny minority of people who have extraordinarily attractive looks, exploitation of that asset isn't such a bad idea. Same is true with athletic abilities. You can only use what you have while you have it.

I was not blessed with both assets, so I had to rely on just one of them. It worked out OK, but I sure could have used the money in my youthful days. It took longer to exploit the other asset, somehow.

[robbob]

403. You know, wether you are flipping burgers at McD's or using your good looks

...to help sell crap, you are being exploited. It just so happens that one form of exploitation pays a hell of a lot better then the other.

As yes, I am aware that those aren't the only 2 choices, but how many people toil away at dead end jobs simply because they need the paycheck? If you can gin the system by getting paid ridiculous amounts of money to model clothing then more power to ya.

[fasttense]

547. Or Maybe there is something wrong with a system you can gin? n/t

[adigal]

543. My son can model, he's been approached by agents

But it's such a messed up life and field, filled with heroin and other drugs to keep your weight off, alcohol, ODs, that he wisely stayed away. It helps that he went to an Ivy League school, so can find a decent job in NYC.

But that's a whole different conversation.

[fasttense]

550. Your son has found a way to avoid the dead end exploitation of his physical beauty

while using his brain to manipulate the system to his benefit. Good for him.

Unfortunately Capitalism is NOT so easily reigned in for other people. And some even think it's a great opportunity to display and exploit their momentary youthful beauty.

[EX500rider]

599. "but why exploit your looks when you could exploit your intellect?"

Why indeed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2014/08/18/the-worlds-highest-paid-models-of-2014-gisele-doutzen-and-adriana-steal-the-show/

The 21 beauties on this year’s highest-paid models list made a combined $142 million in the last 12 months, proving that flawless genes and stellar business acumen are a killer combination.

[Warren DeMontague]

610. which seems pretty ......smart, actually.

[closeupready]

83. Yuck, that's gross.

[bpj62]

84. It's not Porn

SI is pushing the boundaries but as Mineral Man said there is not any genitalia showing. Many young women now shave their pubic hair to almost zero and this is just an example of that. As the father of a teenage girl I am very conscious of how my daughter dresses as well as how her friends dress and I am also aware of the changes in personal grooming when it comes to our pubic area. Funny thing is the SI swim suit issue does nothing for me. Never has and never will.

[Rex]

87. On The First Day Of DU, The Admins Gave To Me

A place to post that was free!

On the second day of DU, the admins gave to me

Two Olive Gardens and a place to post that was free!

On the third day of DU, the admins gave to me

Three women breastfeeding, two Olive Gardens and a place to post that was free!

On the fourth day of DU, the admins gave to me

Four pit bulls, three women breastfeeding, two Olive Gardens and a place to post that was free!

On the fifth day of DU, the admins gave to me

Five Sports Illustrated covers, four pit bulls, three women breastfeeding, two Olive Gardens and a place to post that was free!

[OneGrassRoot]

103. First literal laugh-out-loud moment in weeks.

Well done!

[The Straight Story]

105. You forgot smoking.

[NaturalHigh]

227. Hey - where have you been lately?

I hardly ever see you posting here any more.

[The Straight Story]

228. Battling the evil hordes on our sister site. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

A lot going on elsewhere in life as well.

[NaturalHigh]

229. I never did sign up over there.

In fact I don't think I've even looked in over a month. It looks like a place where a fellow could get shot in the crossfire.

[alp227]

504. Uhh...it's more complicated than that.

Smoking is ok as long as it's not blown in MY face. THAT is why DUers get worked up over smoking. And whenever it affects an unborn child. If you believe in "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" (roughly quoting), you ought to believe that you have the right not to have filth blown in your face.

[kwassa]

193. Finish the song! You have seven more days to go!

hilarious.

[Kaleva]

197. Lol!!

[Jim Lane]

330. Maybe next is: six 2016 polls, and seven anti-vaxxers? (n/t)

[Marrah_G]

622. Love it

[davidn3600]

98. It's amazing that in a progressive forum, a bikini is seen as oppression

Maybe it's because I live in Florida and see women in bikinis all the time. It's no big deal to anyone living here in the land of swimming pools and beaches. You go to the beach and you see women in bikinis everywhere. No one thinks it's oppressive except maybe some radical sex-negative feminists from the north and the religious right.

[adigal]

119. Did you seriously miss the point? Bikinis are fine, I grew up in one

It's pulling it down so most of your vagina is showing and putting it on a magazine that sells in places where kids are that is inappropriate.

[zappaman]

130. "It's pulling it down so most of your vagina is showing"

Now you've got me wondering if you know what a vagina is cuz I don't see it in the picture of this lady.
Not even a little, let alone "most".

[adigal]

141. Mons pubs is showing and another mm her labias would be showing. Happy now?? Nt

[zappaman]

145. Well, at least now we know

That you know what a vagina is.

So you're upset by what's NOT showing, but could have been showing if it were a different picture.

Got it.

[Logical]

590. Do you know what a vagina looks like? I see none of it showing! Nt

[prayin4rain]

232. Do you think she's about to take a swim and

a photographer happened to take a picture? What do you think the purpose of the photo is? What's the purpose of the act of her pulling her bottoms off? Yes, people can be at a nudist colony and it not be porn. People can snap a photo at said nudist colony and it cannot be porn. People can make a sex ed video and it not be porn. People can spend 5 hours in hair and makeup and then pose while pulling down their swimsuit bottoms for the purpose of causing sexual excitement and it can be porn.

[NaturalHigh]

249. "What do you think the purpose of the photo is?"

To sell magazines, and it will serve its purpose well, much to the chagrin of Puritans everywhere.

[adigal]

261. +1000

When the purpose is to titillate with a lack of clothing, it's porn.

[NaturalHigh]

272. Reply #50 in this thread.

Is that porn? I know it's only men, but it's kind of like titillating with a lack of clothing and objectifying, right?

[F4lconF16]

294. Well said.

[hunter]

388. Ah, the good old days of Sunshine and Health...

A time when our grandmas (okay, maybe just my grandmas, not yours) could freely enjoy the great outdoors wearing nothing at all, and it wasn't about sexual excitement; it was Educational, Scientific, and Cultural!

In case you are wondering, I grew up in a family culture where casual nudity, and "artistic" nudity was unremarkable. My parents are both artists, if that explains anything.

But I suspect most of the men who paid a quarter for "Sunshine and Health" were not reading it for Educational, Scientific, and Cultural reasons. Similar to how most men are not reading the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue for the sports.

[betsuni]

479. Me too! My artist parents walked around naked all the time.

By adulthood I had seen enough. I like clothing. For me, porn is nice looking men in cashmere cardigans fondling cats. I have not yet found a publication catering to my preferences, though. I guess I'm too much of a perv.

[EX500rider]

600. All right....just fir you:

lol

[betsuni]

605. Oh, yeah, that's more like it -- I has a thrill up my leg

Thanks, man.

[onenote]

100. Posting to make it an even 100

Not crazy enough to actually state a position. Just chewing on my popcorn.

[MicaelS]

101. Oh, please SI has always done this.

They have always done covers that push the edge, and inflame puritans on both the right and left.

[LadyHawkAZ]

104. And heeeeeeere we go!

The DU Semi-Annual Somewhere, Someone Got Turned On By This Outrage Thread!

Woohoo!

[hifiguy]

108. You have it in one!

[PassingFair]

109. Yes... look at the hysteria and outrage!

(because there IS none)

[hifiguy]

114. The usual purveyors of outrage and hysteria

are conspicuous by their absence from this thread. That is why things have remained civil and rational.

[NaturalHigh]

209. They might be getting ready for next week.

The SI Swimsuit Issue doesn't actually hit the stands until next week, I think. This thread kind of caught me by surprise too.

[LadyHawkAZ]

398. oh but it appears that there is

The only surprise is that the thread isn't full of hidden posts already.

[msanthrope]

396. The 50 Shades of Grey Suckfest Movie Threads are Next Week....nt

[Warren DeMontague]

620. I know, I can't wait.

Honestly I'd much prefer an endless discussion of dialectical materialist class consciousness as represented by the relationship between Spongebob and Mr. Krabs.

[msanthrope]

621. We have be careful....my 50 shades thread got locked.....nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

423. Sports Illustrated: An agent of chaos

[benz380]

115. ...

[riderinthestorm]

124. No. Not porn. Typical beachwear most places, in many places women wear far less

Thongs and topless are pretty standard in Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc etc...

[hifiguy]

154. On a Brazilian beach she'd be considered wildly overdressed.

[riderinthestorm]

156. Yup. SI swimsuit edition is quite tame compared to RL on many beaches

[applegrove]

126. That is ridiculous.

[Blue_Tires]

128. She doesn't have any hair down there?

But then again she's dating Jeter which by default makes her the ugliest woman in the world

[Reter]

208. Thank God :)

None of the young girls today have pubic hair anymore. The last time I seen some in person was 2001.

[prayin4rain]

235. None of the young girls? Vomit. n/t

[Marrah_G]

623. I think what he is saying is that it is a trend in the younger generation

Pretty sure he meant young women, not young girls (as in children).

Brazillians are very popular these days.

[MineralMan]

360. I think that's probably not true. I also think that you probably have not

seen all that many of the young girls, really. I doubt that all that many are showing you their pubic areas. Certainly none of them are doing that to me. Maybe you're different, though. I have no idea. So, where are you seeing all of these young girls? That's the question.

[Reter]

412. By young girls I meant like her age

I'll assume she's in her early to mid 20's. I am 40 but have seen pubic areas of females that age and above recently. The last time I saw pubic hair was 2001. Also, at work we are very open. We all talk about sex and all, and all the young women say say they are shaved, except this one hippy girl.

It may also depend on location. Living in Staten Island certainly helps. Guidos are all extremely maintained, and SI is one of the guido capitals of the world. Even us guys shave here.

[3catwoman3]

211. She must have had everything lasered...

...off, because that would be a lot of shaving or even waxing - there would be bound to be some nicks, bumps or scrapes. Or maybe they were airbrushed.

[taught_me_patience]

213. The pic is completely and totally airbrushed

they made her look like a robot... it's really bad.

[ChosenUnWisely]

131. No not at all, porn requires penatration, however slight, to be porn

For the record I do not read SI or even look at it either.

If I want to get off on pics of women I look at porn

[giftedgirl77]

138. Well aren't you one uninformed individual....

There are many many different types of porn out their that have absolutely nothing to do with sex let alone penatration.

[ChosenUnWisely]

273. Yes I get that for the purposes of this discussion SI is not Porn at all

Kiddies Porn would be a example of what you are attempting to point out.

If folks want to think SI is porn go ahead, the other choice is don't buy, read or look at SI and mind their own business about what others choose to read or look at.

The alternative would be to implement Islamic dress codes in this country to make some people happy.

[NaturalHigh]

275. Don't buy, read, or look at...

Makes sense to me, but it really upsets some people that someone else might read, buy, or look at it. After all...objectification! The children!

"Mind their own business about what others choose to read or look at." Come on now, you know that's not going to happen. We won't be safe until temperance, chastity, and purity of thought are imposed on all.

[ChosenUnWisely]

278. Threads like this are interesting it shows who is liberal and progressive and who is an uptight

regressive.

We need more threads like this.

[NaturalHigh]

279. I agree. It's like everybody shows their cards.

"We need more threads like this."

LOL - don't worry. The magazine hits the stands next week. Before it's over, you'll lose track of who's flaming who. I saw it a year ago.

[ChosenUnWisely]

280. I will just lurk when it comes out why argue over something silly and pointless

A better and more interesting discussion would be "Is Hustler Magazine porn" as long as people include pictures and examples in their posts!

[NaturalHigh]

281. Is it still in business?

Since practically everybody has the Internet, I don't see how any of those magazines could survive. Why would anyone pay for what they could get for free a hundred times over?

[ChosenUnWisely]

283. As far as I know it is. I wonder if memebrs of congress still get their free

subscription to it.

Nice touch Larry!

[NaturalHigh]

284. I didn't know about the free subscriptions.

[ChosenUnWisely]

285. You didn't know that, it was big news back when he started

When the Gov started coming after him he sent them all monthly issues.

[hifiguy]

431. They ALWAYS do.

This is tame compared to some of the wars that used to take place in the thankfully-discontinued meta-discussion group. Hidden posts by the dozens, tombstonings (though only one of the worst actual offenders/instigators was ever tombstoned and then only when she told Skinner to go fuck himself IIRC) and a dogmatism that would make John Calvin or Mao feel hopelessly inadequate. inquisitional popes showed more intellectual flexibility. Ah, those hazy days of yore...

[ChosenUnWisely]

442. Meta Sounds like fun! they should bring it back

[hifiguy]

481. How to describe Meta?

Imagine, if you will a football-field-sized cage full of chimps that is twenty feet high. Every one of these chimps has been ram-fed a gallon of Red Bull and given an elephant-sized shot of pure crystal meth. Uzis and unlimited ammo have been provided to said chimps. Your mission, Mister Phelps, if you choose to accept it, is to carry a "sanity ball" from one end of the cage to the other. Good luck, Jim. You will need it.

[ChosenUnWisely]

526. So Meta was like dropping a hand grenade in a room full of people! My kinda place!

So how can we bring it back?

[giftedgirl77]

331. Yeah, for the record I wasn't referring to this stupid

si cover as I see nothing wrong with it in the least. I was correcting you on your silly ass porn requires penatration statement.

[ChosenUnWisely]

341. Outside of Kiddie Porn, Real Porn requires penetration otherwise it is art!

Luckily we don't live in your puritanical society

What's next burkas for women so they won't show their sinful bodies to those who object to it?!

[giftedgirl77]

343. Really? You know what they say when you assume

something... I watch porn & rather enjoy porn. However, you are missing a huge swath of porn such as foot fettishes, bukkake, s&m, & 1000s of other things that some get their rocks of on & others find utterly disgusting. Yet none have shit to do with penatration.

So get the fuck of your high horse for once again not knowing what in the fuck you're talking about.

[ChosenUnWisely]

345. Sorry Charlie, BDSM is art to many, and one could also make a good argument that bukkake is art

as one could for any fetish that does not involve penetration.

Just because you call it porn does not make it so

Some uptight folks think the work of Georgia O'Keeffe is porn, I call it art.

Luckily for society my interpretation wins.

[giftedgirl77]

347. Wow, you are really a fuckin piece of work....

Several men cumming over a woman's face is considered art???

I don't know what bridge you climbed out from under but you need to find your way back under it asap.

Enjoy your stay.

[ChosenUnWisely]

351. Some could call it performance art, who am I to judge what is good or bad art

you do not have to like it nor participate in it either.

If you want to become an art critic you should but it seems like your critiques would be very biased.

I am enjoying my stay thanks!


How about you, having fun yet?

[MineralMan]

361. Hmm...you appear to have an extensive knowledge of this sort of thing.

Art, eh? I don't know, but I doubt that many would agree with your interpretation of your second example in the title. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I doubt it. I've not seen any examples of that hanging in galleries or museums. Odd, huh?

[ChosenUnWisely]

364. I get around, not all art is in fancy art galleries

You should get out more


Go see some performance art sometime it is very interesting.

[MineralMan]

365. I see.

I get out a lot, and have many years of getting out behind me. I may have seen you a few times when I got. At, you know, art galleries and stuff. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[ChosenUnWisely]

368. Unless you get out between 2 am and 6 am I doubt we ran into each other.

That is when things get interesting, and one meets a better class of people.

[F4lconF16]

296. This. This right here is objectification at it's worst.

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2015, 07:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Look at what you just said:

If I want to get off on pics of women I look at porn

You see somen as things there for your sexual pleasure. And that's pretty fucked up. Also, you ever wonder how it might make the women on this board feel?

[NaturalHigh]

301. Who are you quoting?

The poster to whom you replied didn't say what you have in your shaded quote box.

[F4lconF16]

304. Dang phone. Fixed. Thank you.

[NaturalHigh]

306. Yeah, no problem. I don't even know how to post from my phone.

I have a new phone, and I've barely figured out how to get the weather.

[ChosenUnWisely]

358. So I am f-ed up why do you care? You don't know me, I don't know you. So feel good about

being morally superior to me!

Better now?

[Monk06]

136. Not porn but she shaves right to the edge of the naughty bits so we got that question answered.

[olddots]

137. I don't get it

I have to shave if I look at the cover of a " sports " magazine ?

[99Forever]

140. OMG!

Eeeeeeeeek.












Good grief, the crap some people think they need to whine about.

[adigal]

144. Why complain about supposed complaining? Just move along. Thanks! :) nt

[99Forever]

146. Do I tell you what to comment on?

Or have you a member of the Posting Hall Monitor Squad?

[adigal]

153. You are so funny!!! You just characterized what I said as "crap"

But didn't tell me what to comment on. Thanks for that!

[99Forever]

160. I have zero patience...

... for censors and prudes. Deal with it.

[adigal]

263. And I have zero interest in your rudeness

Deal with it.

[99Forever]

329. Rude is telling...

... other people what's inappropriate for them to view because you don't happen to like it.

[hifiguy]

433. Um, this, times a googolplex.

Anything else is I-know-best puritanism. It existentially amazes me that this attitude has so many defenders on a lefty site.

It really comes down to something Marlene Dietrich said in the '30s or '40s "In other nations sex is a fact, in America it is an obsession." Chalk that up to our asshole Puritan forbears. The country has never outgrown it though some of us have at least made an effort to do so.

[99Forever]

443. I get a chuckle out of prudes and censors.

They get all indignant when you call them on their crap. I'd rather be rude than a prude. My sweet departed Irish Mother always said, "Watch out for people with no sex lives, they spend all of their energy trying to ruin everyone else's."

[NaturalHigh]

186. I take it you don't want any actual discussion then.

Apparently people are just supposed to chime in to agree with you then?

"Oh my goodness, adigal, you're right! It's filthy! Objectification! Disgusting! Think of the children!"

Excuse me while I swoon.

[Nevernose]

149. I grew up in Las Vegas

So advertising like this doesn't shock me; much worse is on half the billboards and taxis in town. Furthermore, I raised a fiercely feminist, well-adjusted, intelligent daughter in this same shithole of a town. I never denied to my little girl (who's now in college) that I found women like this SI model or the way-trashier billboard ads physically attractive, but I also let her know that it objectified women and that anybody of either/any gender needs to get beyond looks to appreciate beauty.

[F4lconF16]

297. Sounds about like the right way to do it.

And it's even more than getting beyond looks--it's accepting people for who they are.

[NaturalHigh]

150. I thought the SI Swimsuit Wars didn't start until next week.

"And I wonder what Jeter's very conservative parents make of this - I have a feeling this is the death knell to this relationship since he seems to care so much what they think."

I imagine they're thinking "Wow, our son really got lucky - super rich and a hot girlfriend!"

[adigal]

155. If you think this, you haven't been following Jeter's career

He has very stable, level-headed, no nonsense parents who stay out of the limelight and taught him to do the same. His girlfriend's naked public area splayed for all to see at every grocery store won't go over well.

[zappaman]

159. So now you're telling us what Derek Jeters parents will think?

You are hilarious!

[NaturalHigh]

163. No, I haven't followed his career too much...

and I know absolutely nothing about his family or personal life. If this is something that bothers Derek Jeter or his parents, then that's their business. If it were my son's girlfriend and he was cool with it, it wouldn't bother me (or my wife) a bit.

[msanthrope]

399. Next week is the 50 Shades of Grey Suckfest Movie Opening. It's best to get this done early. nt

[NaturalHigh]

458. Good point.

[nomorenomore08]

151. And as usual, we get a thread hundreds of posts long over a magazine cover...

It's not that there aren't valid ideas to be discussed and debated here - commodification of the human body etc. - I just wish people would devote the same mental energy to other stuff as well.

[NaturalHigh]

190. The vaccine wars were getting old.

Besides, it's February. That means it's time for the SI Swimsuit Wars.

[nomorenomore08]

192. True. Very true.

[Android3.14]

152. Now that's hot

But porn it is not.

[Logical]

162. I assume you have never seen porn! LOL, so silly! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Is it that time of year already?

[NaturalHigh]

174. It's a week early according to my timeline.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. "practically porn"?

We should convene a panel of experts to ********* to it, and get back to you on that.

[Kurska]

218. Quick someone call Justice Potter Stewart

Rumor has it he can do it just by SIGHT.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Potter Stewart reference: You Beat Me To It.

....so to speak

[Kurska]

226. ....

[indie9197]

172. It looks like a CGI (computer generated image)

kind of like you would see in a video game. I like real women better.

[Orrex]

177. Good heavens! A magazine cover was retouched?!?

Say it ain't so! What if this catches on?!?

[MrScorpio]

179. Nudity, of even semi-nudity, isn't porn. nt

[L0oniX]

196. omg

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Okay, folks. I fixed it for ya.

There, now everyone can be happy.

[NaturalHigh]

202. Now that is awesome!

I hope you don't mind if I stay with the 1.0 version though.

[Warren DeMontague]

203. I wanted to make it so the nun is actually coming out of her bathing suit

but I couldn't score the right nun on short notice.

[opiate69]

210. !

[polly7]

531. LMAO! nt.

[CentralMass]

207. You are giving them free dvertisement.

[betsuni]

212. Bikinis on a farm? Does she have a tractor story?

SI will certainly get a lot of "pubicity" for this. When I saw this un-covered cover I thought it was a joke, they couldn't possibly have chosen that photo for the cover. It's funny looking, confusing. Is she going to pee? Ask us if she should get this rash checked out? Show us how good her waxer is? Why does she want us to look at her crotch? What kind of farm is it -- a petting zoo? And why are some men so threatened that some women get tired of the constant parade of such images? You can't understand how boring it is to see the same thing over and over for decades? Well, at least it's not Kim Kardashian's ass again.

[adigal]

266. Right? It's a ridiculous picture, no purpose except to push the envelope as far as they can

I wouldn't be surprised to see an attempt to censor this from grocery stores, etc.

And I'm tired of men mocking me and other women who find this type of image presented as desirable behavior in women disturbing. To be beautiful, girls must all,shave everything and show almost everything. Seems like Gloria Steinem wasted her time.

(And just for those who say all young girls now look like this, there is a backlash against this type of grooming.)

[NaturalHigh]

270. You think that's as far as they can push the envelope?

Seriously?

Nobody is mocking you. I've never even read one of your posts until tonight. A lot of people are mocking this outraged hand wringing that displays itself whenever a scantily-clad woman is seen.

If this had been a man wearing only a fig leaf, nobody would have blinked.

[F4lconF16]

298. But it wasn't a man in a fig leaf.

Yet again. As it has been for thousands of years of systematic male oppression. Just one more in a long line of images. That's the real problem here. (Completely disagree with the OP it's the nudity that is.)

[NaturalHigh]

299. "That's the real problem here."

The only problem I see here is that people who think the cover is bad won't just ignore it, not buy it, not look at, etc. They feel the need to convince everyone else how bad it is too. That makes no sense to me. It's like people who hate portabella mushrooms trying to convince everyone else that portabella mushrooms are bad.

I hate those cooking shows with that crazy English guy, but my wife loves them. My wife hates wrestling, but I love it. She doesn't try to convince me that wrestling is bad, and I don't try to convince her that crazy cooking shows are bad. She doesn't watch wrestling, and I don't watch crazy cooking shows. It works out for both of us.

[F4lconF16]

302. So discussing sexism and objectification

In mainstream media and the culture of oppression of women in the US isn't okay? I think this cover is all of that--am I not allowed to discuss that idea? Can I not attempt to present evidence supporting an opinion on a discussion board in a progressive forum? We are here to discuss and often convince one anotherabout various issues, after all.

[NaturalHigh]

305. Absolutely you can discuss it.

As you said it's a discussion board. Just don't be surprised when, in the course of said discussion, people disagree with you. Don't be surprised when someone tells you that he or she thinks you're wrong on practically everything you've written in this thread.

[Snow Leopard]

596. evidence would be great!

love your opinions too, just don't agree with them is all. *saying* there is oppression doesn't make it so.

[LittleBlue]

461. "Seems like Gloria Steinem wasted her time"

Why would you assume she would prevail where so many more powerful institutions, like the Catholic church, failed?

The truth is, no one can control sexuality. Advertising firms can push certain trends, but those trends are based on the conditions already present psychologically in the human mind. The trend of shaving body hair makes women look younger, and exposed more of the flesh. And from a practical standpoint, since cunnilingus has become more of a standard sex act, it makes little practical sense to have a pubic area covered in hair. Body hair is becoming seen as a masculine trait, though even men are "manscaping" for convenience.

Steinem wasted her time because, like everyone before her, she tried to fight an irresistible force. The only people who can still hold out against this force are totalitarian states, where sexuality is criminalized by a theocratic regime. And they, in the end, will also lose.

[onenote]

215. warning: gratuitous flashing of body parts

?1334815844

[NaturalHigh]

221. Don't be surprised if this draws an alert.

That woman's knickers are pulled up so that they show her ankles. That's practically porn!

[F4lconF16]

300. Here.

http://www.utne.com/community/ally-mcbeal-meets-the-coppertone-girl.aspx?PageId=1#ArticleContent

[zappaman]

219. Thank you for a wildy entertaining thread!

[bluedigger]

220. I didn't see Jeter's pic or name, so no, not porn.

And I checked very closely, just to be sure.

[prayin4rain]

230. It clearly fits the definition of porn. n/t

[DebJ]

231. The entire purpose of the photo is to be sexually enticing. Isn't that the definition of porn?

No one is buying magazine because the picture is such classy art.

They are buying it for the same reason people buy 'porn'.

[prayin4rain]

233. Exactly. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

243. So anything that is sexually enticing is porn?

Wow...that's just...well I don't know what that is.

[DebJ]

354. When you are exposing your genitalia, yes. n/t

[msanthrope]

402. What genitalia is being exposed? nt

[DebJ]

444. Mons pubis n/t

[msanthrope]

446. I can't see her mons. nt

[Agschmid]

501. I had to google what that even is...

[killbotfactory]

245. So any popular movie that involves a sex scene is porn?

Anytime a someone wears clothes that other people might find sexually enticing, they are being pornographic?

[prayin4rain]

248. pictures, books, movies. ...

por·nog·ra·phy
\-fē\noun

: movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement

Full Definition

1

:the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2

:material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

[killbotfactory]

250. Wow. Pornography is way more respectable than I thought. nt

[NaturalHigh]

252. Have you ever read Gone With the Wind?

How about The Godfather? By your definition, porn is everywhere and omnipresent.

[prayin4rain]

253. That's not MY definition. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

254. Okay, well nice talking with you.

I don't think you and I are going to agree on much, so further conversation is probably pointless.

[Bonobo]

251. Porn if it is for men. "Erotica" if it is for women. nt

[prayin4rain]

255. That's true, too. That double standard does exist. n/t

[msanthrope]

404. Al Goldstien, publisher of Screw magazine, once offered this...

"The feminists say they are anti-porn, pro-erotica, but they offer nothing in illustration of the latter. I wish they would offer up some of their erotica so I can jerk off to it. But the truth is, it's all semantics; if you like it, it's pornography, but if they like it, it's erotica."

[NaturalHigh]

464. That's a nearly perfect definition, but I offer one caveat...

Most feminists don't necessarily say they are against porn. My wife, while not as radical as she was in her college days, considers herself a strong feminist, and she's not against porn. In fact, she occasionally watches it while I don't care for it myself.

[msanthrope]

466. I prefer to read it.

Literotica.com has a category for everyone.

[NaturalHigh]

470. I'll check that out.

When I was younger I read some of "those" books.

[killbotfactory]

236. It's risqué

and I doubt their readership will be horrified about it

[edbermac]

308. Vintage Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover.

[NaturalHigh]

309. Some of those knees are bare.

That's practically porn! Objectification! Think of the children!

[Violet_Crumble]

310. Has anyone got a link to last year's thread?

I need to do some pre-reading and be prepared before the big outrage thread erupts with the release of this issue. Thanks in advance!

[HappyMe]

317. Here ya go --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498713


It's a big train wreck.

This year's version includes some judgy snark about Jeter's parents putting the kabosh on his relationship with the woman on the cover. Kind of implies he should find a "nice girl". What grown man lets his parents dictate who he dates.

[Violet_Crumble]

324. Thanks, HappyMe. I'm all prepared now for this years attempt to break the trainwreck record....

I might try and kick off the outrageathon with this:

Forget about that pilot being burnt alive! This Sports Illustrated cover is the TRUE crime against humanity!


btw, good to see you again

[HappyMe]

326. Good to see you too.

Making people into human tiki torches is nothing compared to the horror of beautiful young women in bathing suits. Not that long ago people were 'Je suis Charlie' all over the place. I guess that's over. Or maybe there's an approved Je suis Charlie list somewhere.

[adigal]

374. Absurd...a pilot being burned alive doesn't keep people from having other concerns

It's not either-or. But I think you know that.

[RiffRandell]

383. I briefly skimmed it and see the author of this OP is mysteriously

absent from last year's discussion. Hmmmm....showing up fashionably late by a year:

[HappyMe]

384. Aaaah! Ugly shoe porn!

...and socks with them too....




I didn't bother to look too much at last year's thread. I was a bit amazed that the outrage didn't start until 3pm, when I heard on the morning news about the cover. "50 Shades" is coming out on the 14th, so I suppose this will have to tide people over until then.

[NaturalHigh]

589. Awesome! Thanks.

I'm going to re-read that in my spare time.

[johnson_z]

318. I vote no. nt

[Yavin4]

334. When you see a thread complaining about the SI cover that means...

that Spring is near and the nice weather will return.

[pipoman]

339. Don't worry mom...your teenage sons have actual porn for their sexual pleasure...

[Frank Cannon]

356. I remember the days when I used to LOOK FORWARD to this issue.

Now, it's just... meh.

The Internet has killed my soul.

[tridim]

357. Based on your third sentence, a suggestion for you...

http://nofap.com

Open mind required.

[hifiguy]

601. ?????

[Yavin4]

367. Back in my day we had to walk up hill in the snow for our porn n/t

[pipoman]

370. I'm not that old....i had to hide it between my mattress and box spring

It took up actual space, not virtual space....

[Yavin4]

371. I remember going in to the back room of video stores to rent porn

and getting that look of shame from the clerk. These kids today have no idea how good they have it.

[pipoman]

382. Lol...I remember that...

Also remember going to get a movie for my son when he was like 6, getting to the cashier and having her say, 'there is a charge on your account for not rewinding Shaving Ryans Privates, or some such.....

[Warren DeMontague]

453. You were going to the wrong video stores, then.

Any video store clerk worth his or her damn salt knew that the "smut hut" was responsible for a big chunk of their paycheck.

[Frank Cannon]

353. Didn't realize we had so many Amish posting here on DU.

I have never understood why we have such a hangup about nudity in this country. I'd much rather my kids see a movie with naked people in it than a movie that glorifies a sniper blowing people's heads off. Now, THAT's disgusting.

[alp227]

505. In this case the nudity is being shoved in everyone's face.

There's a difference between choosing on your own to look at raunchy images vs. having raunchy images shoved in your face on someone else's terms.

[Bettie]

372. I wonder how people would feel about this cover if it showed

a less-airbrushed version of a female body. Or perhaps one that looks like, say the average female body.

Oh, there would be so much more horror over someone who isn't a size zero (and airbrushed) showing her body. Someone whose body doesn't look "perfect" as our society constructs perfection.

Is it porn? Nope. But it does add to the idea that women are only valuable for how well they are packaged for male viewing.

[adigal]

373. Can you imagine?? They put a size 16 woman into one of their editions this year

and the comments men were making were horrendous.

Fat, keep your clothes on, pig.

For a liberal site, the men here mostly don't get it, which is surprising.

[Bettie]

375. There would be wailing and rending of clothing (metaphorically)

that a woman dared to be photographed at a size and with a look that is not the current dominant aesthetic.

Then, there would be the protestations that they only care about her health, as if they know from a photograph what her health status is.

And the many fat pig comments.

I also suspect that many people don't realize that the models in these photos don't look at all like they do in the pictures.

[Warren DeMontague]

441. Really? People made those comments here?

That's funny. Last year some downright awful things were said about the women on the cover of the swimsuit issue- here, on DU- but they ALL came from people mad about the cover and the existence of the magazine.

Hmmm, I guess a few people have also insulted the intelligence and education level of Hannah Davis, here, too. Interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184623#post262

Glad to know we all agree that bad-mouthing the SI models is not really fair, or terribly nice.

[adigal]

452. No, it wasn't here. And you just referred me back to this thread. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

455. i know I did. I think it's funny that you're bemoaning the bad-mouthing of SI swimsuit models

And at least implying that it was done here on DU, when

a) it wasn't done on DU, vis a vis the plus size model

And

b) the only person actually bad-mouthing a SI model this year, so far, was you.

[adigal]

459. Oh, another faux-clever response. How cute. But this is a serious issue, and many women are

bothered by it, not just me.

Raising daughters with healthy self-esteem is hard enough in a society soaked in consumerism and casual sex. Raising girls who hear from guys that they are "too fat" because they are a size 10 is real, and these boys/guys get that from crap like this magazine. Raising girls who don't think that they need to shave themselves bald and pull their pants down to show everyone how bald they are is made harder when this POS magazine puts this picture in the supermarket aisles.

And now I've just given you a much more thoughtful response than you deserve.

[Warren DeMontague]

465. You're trying to change the subject. You were complaining about people bad-mouthing the models.

I guess it's okay, though, if it is done insulting the intelligence of the skinny ones, by someone with a whole bunch of "think of the children" psychobabble to rationalize it.

and this year they put a plus size model in, but I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

[adigal]

468. OK, Warren, let me say this simply

Hannah Davis looks vacuous in her photos. Now, she may be a member of Mensa or a Rhodes Scholar, but she posed or was posed to look provocative, inviting, and unintelligent. Not intense or fierce or smart. That may be a SI decision or a characteristic of the model but it is a societal force that tells men that they want their women skinny but having breasts, pretty, bald and mostly naked.

And people were bashing the plus sized model in the advertisement, not the size 8 model that SI calls "plus-sized" and pats themselves on the back for including.

And since you may not know, size 8 isn't "plus-sized" in any sane sense of the word. So I'm throwing shade at SI for that BS.

Now, since you and I have very divergent opinions on this, I will leave you with your's. Have a good night.

[Warren DeMontague]

469. I thought last year's cover was better, the 3 women were curvier.

But contrary to what they may be teaching in those culture analysis classes, peoples' sexual programming is not so easily whammified by ads or brainwashing or "the patriarchy" or whatever the boogeyman of the week is.

This is why "curing" gay people doesnt work. We rightly condemn that crap, as liberals, don't we? So why is it okay to try to tell hetero men they "shouldn't" find certain women in bathing suits attractive, if that is what they like?

[EX500rider]

602. "But this is a serious issue"

Yes, it currently ranks at 3,476,278 on the list of serious issues.

[NaturalHigh]

618. This is a serious issue?

According to whom?

[polly7]

380. I'd be fine with that.

As I expect most others would be. Many women not 'typical' model-size' have been shown on this board before in various threads, and for the most part, admired.

Women are the ones who seem to preemptively shaming other women. I don't get that, but whatever makes one feel like a victim - I guess, go for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

439. Right, last year some people were goin' on all day long about how no one can look like the 3

ladies depicted on the cover.

Not "most people don't look like that"- no one does. It is physically impossible, apparently, for anyone to look at all like the 3 bikini-clad women who were on the 2014 cover.

Some people seemed, like, oddly emotionally invested in that proposition. It was downright weird, how threatened they were by the whole thing.

[The Straight Story]

462. No images of the prophet muhammad or of women in bikinis seems to be a theme with some folks

They are worried about how others might look at said pics and think something they don't want them to think.

[Warren DeMontague]

467. Doubleplusbad wrongthink!

Thoughtcrime!

[Orrex]

488. Do you suppose that men appear on a lot of magazine covers without makeup and photoshopping?

Oh, there would be so much more horror over someone who isn't a size zero (and airbrushed) showing her body. Someone whose body doesn't look "perfect" as our society constructs perfection.

I would very much like to see someone produce such a magazine, one that showcases non-made-up and non-photoshopped people on the cover. I'm sure that it would fly off the newsstands each month as ordinary people rush out to purchase ordinary pictures of other ordinary people.

I would hope that such a magazine would publish its articles without editing, because professional editing creates an unrealistic expectation of writing ability. And their writing had damn well better not be witty, because that would foster an unreasonable expectation of wit.

Art magazines should stop publishing pictures of great works of art, because these are bound to make ordinary people feel inferior about their artistic ability, too.

It will be a better world when we start celebrating the drab and the mundane.

[BubbaFett]

381. Why do many of the posts in this thread

remind me of the Taliban?

[In_The_Wind]

386. Not even close.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

387. Jeter's relationship with parents dies from case of the vapors.... nt

[yellowcanine]

391. "It's porn!" "No it isn't!" Yawn. Grow up. Don't look at it if you don't like it.

sheesh.

As for the exploitation issue, I am sure she was not forced to do the photo and she was well compensated.

[adigal]

456. That's a BS answer when it is openly displayed at the supermarket

Maybe if we were talking about Playboy, which often has less risque covers than this, but they are covered and not at the family grocery store in the checkout aisle. So your dismissive BS "Yawn. Grow up. Don't look at it," is really cool and, boy, I wish I were as cool as you, but it is not a thoughtful or even slightly logical response as this magazine is in everyone's faces.

And on another site with mostly women, many of the mothers were very upset that they would have to now worry about their adolescent daughters seeing this and thinking you have to be bald and pulling your bottoms down to be sexy. Feel free to dismiss their concerns, too, but they are real and worrisome when raising daughters with healthy self-images.

[NaturalHigh]

490. Maybe they should TALK to their daughters.

That's one of the things that helps kids develop healthy self images. Sports Illustrated isn't responsible for child rearing.

[adigal]

493. So you are assuming they don't??? So if a girl is affected by media images, that means her mother

doesn't talk to her? That's not a logical conclusion. Very disappointing to see the type of logic used by Fox News and Freepers here on DU.

A mother can talk and talk, as I did, and these other mothers did and still do, but the images out there are pervasive and powerful. This makes it much harder, even when a mother and daughter have a great relationship, as I do with my daughter, for a girl to understand that she doesn't have to look like this and present herself like this model to be attractive.

[NaturalHigh]

583. Interesting that my daughter...

grew up in the same society, exposed to the same images, and has a great self image. Sports Illustrated didn't seem to have much of an effect.

[davidn3600]

515. Then file a complaint with your supermarket's management

They are the ones putting it in the checkout aisle.

[Bluenorthwest]

411. Are you seriously posting a Daily Mail article that describes a woman as the property of Derek Jeter

and claiming to offer a Feminist perspective? Hannah Davis is a wildly successful woman at the very top of her field earning millions of dollars but this article identifies her as 'Derek Jeter's girlfriend'. That's typical of the conservative tabloid The Daily Fail but it is odd to see their sexism touted here as if it is not sexism.
Who is she? Some guy's girlfriend. What's important? His parents will be upset....

In 1993 they ran this headline: ""Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".

In the pre WW2 years, they were in fact, pro fascist in a big, big way.

Their current front page offers two photos of 'Hefner's Playboy Ex' falling down, ass to camera.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

[Stellar]

429. disgusting!

nt

[Rex]

440. Does the picture arouse you? If not then it is not porn, if so then yes it is porn.

nt

[titaniumsalute]

487. I'm a 40 year old hetero

Oddly enough these pictures never really arouse me at all. I actually thing she has a gorgeous face but the rest of her looks rather fake, airbrushed, and so far out of my league you'd need a worm hole in space to get me close.

I tend to like the more natural look. But if you put a lady at about 135 pounds with a muffun top and some thick legs/ass, it would turn me on. But then would it be porn?

By the way...food turns me on. Is that pornographic?

[Major Nikon]

546. Coffee Porn!

[Warren DeMontague]

581. oooo.

Nice yin yang there, too.

[LittleBlue]

445. Threads like these expose DU's servers/software

If you click "view all", the thread loads one post at a time lol

At this rate, it will take me 5 minutes to load the thread.

[NaturalHigh]

471. I've been noticing that a lot lately on longer threads.

[TeamPooka]

447. This is why there's a trash button on a thread. nt

[BootinUp]

454. Community standards apply whenever the subject is porn.

I am 51 f'in years old. To me the picture is soft porn. But to the younger generation is probably is less "porn" worthy than that. One other thing that I think have learned. I doubt that it is beneficial to enforce an earlier generations standards on porn on the next generation. Just a thought.

[betsuni]

463. Yesterday's "Nightline" did a story about the cover but wouldn't show it ...

because it was "too risque." Then they did one on a new reality show called "The Sex Factor" about young people competing to be best porn actor.

[randr]

473. It would be porn if someone had just lit her on fire

My question is whether she is pulling bottoms on or taking them off.
Entreating, enticing, provocative, intimate, but not pornographic.

[TransitJohn]

475. Sweet! It's totally time for another round of good old fashioned DU prudery!

yay!

[Warren DeMontague]

519. Finding women in bikinis attractive is apparently "unhealthy sexuality"

Man, the shit I learn on DU.

[hifiguy]

483. This thread has now handily passed the # of posts in this classic of

DU paranoia and ignorance on a similar subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025431864#post353



I yam flabbergasked, to quote Popeye the Sailor.

[Warren DeMontague]

484. Batten Down Teh Hatches

It's-a gonna be a long-a week!

[RiffRandell]

500. Aye Aye, Captain!

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 02:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Full speed ahead!




We always loved the boating school episodes of SB....remember when Flats was the new student? So many good ones with Mrs. Puff:

[Warren DeMontague]

518. Now you're just

Fishin'...



Hey! Spongebob movie comes out tomorrow, doesn't it? Uh oh, gonna probably have to see that.

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/06/384314116/second-spongebob-movie-is-a-nonsensical-loud-choppy-triumph

[antiquie]

555. Well...

1997 Tyra Banks


2008 Marisa Miller


2009 Bar Refaeli


from

(I wanted to play, too, but safely with RiffRandell)

[Warren DeMontague]

571. Heavens! How did the universe survive?

I would think Tyra Banks "nearly flashing her labia" in '97 alone would have caused a Higgs Boson general field collapse.

[antiquie]

576. The bellybutton alone

may have shifted the timeline.

[NaturalHigh]

588. **Sigh**

The question is whether or not a man held the door open for those young ladies. If not, we move on to Spider Woman.

[hifiguy]

521. LOL!

Popcorn time!

[hifiguy]

523. Indeed.

[The Straight Story]

524. I would hold open the door for someone buying the spiderwoman comic

[NaturalHigh]

586. That's just pure and simple plain old misogyny!

[Calista241]

548. Lol. The moral outrage here definitely compares well to the religious right at times.

[steve2470]

553. Porn by religious 1915 standards....

by enlightened secular (and liberal religious) standards of 2015, not porn.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

554. well goddamn, this sure is a shiny object.

I'm glad that all the world's problems have been addressed to the point where we can focus on a bikini for 500 posts.

[Warren DeMontague]

570. Crap man, did you just get here?

This is DU. 500 post Shiny Object threads is what we do!

Just be glad Olive Garden isn't sponsoring another moon bombing mission.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

574. Yes, I just arrived on the scene, but I can't stay.

Fence break at the ranch in Belize. Hogs are loose. I'll check back in at post 750.

[Warren DeMontague]

575. Watch out for the carniverous plants.

They're murder on the old ankles.

[BlueJazz]

572. Not my type. Too skinny and boney. It's not porn to me 'cause she looks just silly.

[trueblue2007]

578. STUPID PICTURE.

if i were her ...... i would never pose for that picture. my God woman, don't you have respect for yourself???

[NaturalHigh]

591. I just checked out last year's SI Swimsuit thread.

One of them anyway.

I see the arguments haven't changed much. Objectification. Misogyny. Patriarchy. That sort of stuff - all for one magazine cover a year that some men (and some women) enjoy looking at.

[aikoaiko]

593. Will this 2015 SI cover thread eclipse the 2014 thread in replies?

708 replies, 33546 views

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498713

Only time will tell.

[McCamy Taylor]

611. I don't see any pubes so it isn't porn.

Now, there is one online where you can see like half a centimeter of nipple. That is porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

613. That's, like, a whole 'nother fight.

Oh my god, the GD pubic hair wars? That was .... well, for lack of a better word, hairy.

[NaturalHigh]

617. I must have missed those.

Probably a good thing for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

619. It was truly a thing to behold.

People who claim they believe in "not telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies", telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies.

Fairly typical.

[NaturalHigh]

630. What they really want is to tell EVERYONE what they should or shouldn't do...

and then move on to tell them what they CAN or CANNOT do with their own bodies.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

627. People who are offended by and made uncomfortable by the human body or the act of sex

are simply immature and as we evolve as human beings we will be better able to recognize what is gross

(insert photo here of dead Iraqi's on the night of "Shock & Awe&quot

and what isnt

(insert photo of nude man and woman)

[samsingh]

628. i love this cover.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

634. porn is the porn of DU

some people just keep watching the same thread over and over and over

[Stuart G]

637. Some very inportant info on this thread..

need to keep up with it..
now and forever....

[FSogol]

638. This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to

it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...

[NaturalHigh]

639. And so forth...