I think arguing the SI swimsuit issue is sexist, demeaning to women, etc. is a good argument....

[kckd]

I'm not saying I totally agree with it. But if SI wanted to end their swimsuit issue because of it, I'd say it's understandable.

What doesn't make any sense is this....

Nothing wrong with Gayle King. I wouldn't be making fun of her (or a woman like her) if I spotted her on a beach wearing this. I just wouldn't think anything other than it's a woman on the beach.

It's like National Geographic putting my lawn on the front cover after I just finished cutting the grass.

It's a nice lawn, but it's not cover material.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

 

[Papapete11]

I absolutely love the Swimsuit edition and I sure as shit did as a 15 year-old kid. 😜 I think these magazines are a celebration!!!!! A celebration of beautiful women in bathing suits who get paid a ton to do it. BTW, Kate Upton is the shit.

 

[kckd]

I absolutely love the Swimsuit edition and I sure as shit did as a 15 year-old kid. 😜 I think these magazines are a celebration!!!!! A celebration of beautiful women in bathing suits who get paid a ton to do it. BTW, Kate Upton is the shit.

Not really my point, but perhaps someone else can give a counter.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

If SI thinks scantily clad super models on the cover for the purposes of attracting googly eyed boys and men to their product is sexist, then they should certainly discontinue the swim suit edition. I also agree with the idea that putting a very average woman on the cover in a swim suit makes little business sense. I don't think anyone is buying a subscription to see Martha Stewart or Gail King in a swim suit.

If I was a SI shareholder, I'd be furious. SI isn't going to change human nature nor are they going to save the dignity of women by throwing away about the only money maker they have left to make a silly, misguided moral statement. Whether it's the old Sears catalog, the old Playboy mag, SI SS edition or Porn hub, young men are going to be searching for beautiful woman and as long as being a beautiful woman that is willing to show her boobies is worth millions of dollars...

 

[TivoliDawg]

I'm not saying I totally agree with it. But if SI wanted to end their swimsuit issue because of it, I'd say it's understandable.

What doesn't make any sense is this....

Nothing wrong with Gayle King. I wouldn't be making fun of her (or a woman like her) if I spotted her on a beach wearing this. I just wouldn't think anything other than it's a woman on the beach.

It's like National Geographic putting my lawn on the front cover after I just finished cutting the grass.

It's a nice lawn, but it's not cover material.

It’s all about advertising money. 20 years ago, which is not that long ago, and the majority of American women were skinny, they all wanted to be beautiful and skinny.

Now that the majority of American women are fat asses, showing them a woman who is young, skinny, beautiful and attractive makes them insanely insecure, because they literally do not know any people like that in their life and their social circle.

There are a handful of boutique brands out there that still shows skinny, attractive, blonde women, and I always make a point to patronize them when I can. If I wanted to stare at fat black women all day, I would go to my local Walmart.

 

[kckd]

It’s all about advertising money. 20 years ago, which is not that long ago, and the majority of American women were skinny, they all wanted to be beautiful and skinny.

Now that the majority of American women are fat asses, showing them a woman who is young, skinny, beautiful and attractive makes them insanely insecure, because they literally do not know any people like that in their life and their social circle.

There are a handful of boutique brands out there that still shows skinny, attractive, blonde women, and I always make a point to patronize them when I can. If I wanted to stare at fat black women all day, I would go to my local Walmart.

But that's kind of the point of why they are on the cover. They are unique. You can't be like them. There's a reason why MJ was on 50 covers and I'm not on one.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

It’s all about advertising money. 20 years ago, which is not that long ago, and the majority of American women were skinny, they all wanted to be beautiful and skinny.

Now that the majority of American women are fat asses, showing them a woman who is young, skinny, beautiful and attractive makes them insanely insecure, because they literally do not know any people like that in their life and their social circle.

There are a handful of boutique brands out there that still shows skinny, attractive, blonde women, and I always make a point to patronize them when I can. If I wanted to stare at fat black women all day, I would go to my local Walmart.

Are SI advertisers targeting fluffy middle aged women? My guess is what is left of the SI demo is old guys that remember what SI was and would rather see 1990 Elle than 2024 Gail.

 

[TivoliDawg]

But that's kind of the point of why they are on the cover. They are unique. You can't be like them. There's a reason why MJ was on 50 covers and I'm not on one.

Agreed. Everyone, including women, like looking at beautiful women.

We’re in a weird place right now since 2020 where everything is Opposite Day. But we’re slowly swinging back to normalcy. Where hot blondes rule.

 

[deadduckdawg]

Nothing wrong with Gayle King. I wouldn't be making fun of her (or a woman like her) if I spotted her on a beach wearing this. I just wouldn't think anything other than it's a woman on the beach.

I’d be thinking who’s that fat-assed whale on the beach.

 

[Georgia Jim]

I'm not saying I totally agree with it. But if SI wanted to end their swimsuit issue because of it, I'd say it's understandable.

What doesn't make any sense is this....

Nothing wrong with Gayle King. I wouldn't be making fun of her (or a woman like her) if I spotted her on a beach wearing this. I just wouldn't think anything other than it's a woman on the beach.

It's like National Geographic putting my lawn on the front cover after I just finished cutting the grass.

It's a nice lawn, but it's not cover material.

Da Brotha's like a little junk in the trunk....just sayin...

 

[JackRussellDawg]

@Eastmandawg would tear that up!

 

[Eastmandawg]

@Eastmandawg would tear that up!

“Ol hell yeah”:

 

[blackpug6]

I’d be thinking who’s that fat-assed whale on the beach.

many years ago,
went to the beach with my cousins.
as to one,
people were unkind regarding her gerth.

 

[Eastmandawg]

View embedded media

many years ago,
went to the beach with my cousins.
as to one,
people were unkind regarding her gerth.

View embedded media

There’s an implication in there somewhere, ya just gotta listen 4 it:

 

[blackpug6]

There’s an implication in there somewhere, ya just gotta listen 4 it:

View embedded media

no implication.
it's obvious.



what?
input is greatly appreciated.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

If SI thinks scantily clad super models on the cover for the purposes of attracting googly eyed boys and men to their product is sexist, then they should certainly discontinue the swim suit edition. I also agree with the idea that putting a very average woman on the cover in a swim suit makes little business sense. I don't think anyone is buying a subscription to see Martha Stewart or Gail King in a swim suit.

If I was a SI shareholder, I'd be furious. SI isn't going to change human nature nor are they going to save the dignity of women by throwing away about the only money maker they have left to make a silly, misguided moral statement. Whether it's the old Sears catalog, the old Playboy mag, SI SS edition or Porn hub, young men are going to be searching for beautiful woman and as long as being a beautiful woman that is willing to show her boobies is worth millions of dollars...

Wars have been fought over that stuff and it’s not going away.

 

[Pecanman]

I long for the Kathy Ireland days. Kathy was & is a smokeshow, whew!