Sports Illustrated - it's worse than you thought:

[Shampoobra]

30. This is a good list, but it lacks a specific 7th observation:

Power. The media manipulation at work in this photo has resulted in an image of power, not vulnerability. He doesn't look happy to see the viewer, and if the action in the photo were to continue, the viewer would be mowed down by the sheer strength of his will.

This image of power suggests that if he's threatened by a male predator, he won't necessarily need another man to help defend himself.

But the three young women on the current SI cover have been arranged to project vulnerability. They're presenting the viewer with just their faces and asses, and they pose no threat at all to the viewer. Unlike in the case of the football player above, "if the action in the photo were to continue," the passive viewer would remain unaffected because the women are projecting nothing more than happiness and vulnerability.

The image of vulnerability suggests that if they're threatened by a male predator, they would do well to have another male nearby to protect them (unlike the football player above, whose demeanor suggests he could probably handle himself). This would not be the case if the cover image were to present three female athletes in their uniforms, instead of three happy, vulnerable, topless women who appear to be delighted to see and/or be seen by the viewer.

The player above is portrayed as a potential predator who operates within the confines of a rule-governed sport. The young women on the anniversary issue are portrayed as something much less powerful.

I do understand the significance of your six points, but power is the concept that shows the difference between the two images. I think you'd have to be contrasting images of male and female athletes, or of male and female swimsuit models, in order to make truly objective comparisons.