SI Swimsuit Issue is a Misnomer

Thursday, February 11, 2010 | 6 Comment(s)

So on Monday I received my SI Swimsuit Issue (Im a subscriber).  I know that you can call or write to not get this issue (timed to line up with Valentine's Day each year--somehow I know this reinforces my last blog post--im just not sure how exactly) and instead receive an extra issue added to the end of your subscription, but frankly that takes even a modicum of energy.  One which I am not willing to spend on my magazine subscription.

 (*Brief Tangent:  I also subscribe to Newsweek.  This subscription began as a gift from a friend of mine [one of those 2 for 1 deals] but i have resubscribed since.  I tell you this only because somehow the name on the subscription reads "Multitiyahu."  It remains the funniest and my favorite misspelling of my name thus far in life.  I partially think I resubscribed because I simply couldn't do without the giggle I get every time I read the name on the cover. End brief tangent*)

So today, Thursday, I thumbed through the swimsuit magazine for the first time.  And here are my thoughts.

1) Yes, Bar Refaeli is the hottest jew I have ever seen (I'm sure that link will help my blog's hit count).

2) Brooklyn Decker, aka. the Swimsuit cover model this year, aka. tennis star Andy Roddick's wife, is totally fucking weird looking.  I can't look at her and NOT think of E.T. dressed up like a lady.  That's just my opinion.

3) I cannot find anyway to call this a "Swimsuit" issue.  Most of the pictures I saw had the models holding their tops.  Not really the way to sell swimwear.  And not really focusing on the fabrics.  Unless "swimsuits" now include a ton of boob colored material,  they certainly don't put the 'wear' in 'swimwear' (or swim for that matter--none of em are in the water).  Usually, and I'm assuming still, they have a section where the "suits" are literally painted onto the models.  Swimsuit issue?  No.  The appearance of naked ladies issue? Yes.

4) Speaking of naked lady issues, I also can't find an excuse to put this stuff in a sports magazine.  I mean, I enjoy the content as much as the next hetero guy, but seeing models lying on rocks, while potentially grueling work (shhhh. don't tell Detroit that this qualifies as work, let alone grueling work), is not a sport (similar to how golf isn't a sport--walking is--golf = hobby--but that's a blog for another day). Can we agree that bikini ladies are not 'sports relevant.'  (Can we agree that i've used too many quotes in this post in general.) I think everyone will be happier if we just admit that the majority (not all, but the majority) of sports fans are male, and males (not all, but the majority) like to look at pictures of scantily clad pretty women, and thus, we have the Swimsuit Issue.  I don't feel like Sherlock Holmes revealing this, but it goes just a little bit too unsaid.  I should add that they do have a section where they have actual female athletes in bathing suits (this year the Olympic Downhill Ski Team), but personally, while it is nice to see how amazing these athletes' bodies are from so much training, it just seems even more objectifying since these women are so talented at things other than looking beautiful.  (they used to have a section featuring male athletes with their wives in bikinis.  Egalitarian FAIL)

5) So here is the crux of my argument (and also, why the magazine went unopened for 4 days).  I can get past the moral outrage of the existence of this issue.  In reality, I have none.  SI makes it more than easy to not receive it and compensates you.  By now, everyone knows what they're getting if they do choose to get this particular issue, and I don't feel the need to babysit America.

But me, I'm pro porn.  Porn has tons of good uses (inside and outside relationships--again, another blog [cause it's got bad uses too, certainly]).  One of the uses it is particularly good for is looking at naked people.  It's the best at it actually.   To drive home this point, I give you a conversation I have a number of years ago with my younger male cousin, who was probably a freshman or sophomore in high school at the time.

I decided to try and be the cool older cousin and give him my old porno mags from when I was in high school (i was out of college already at this point).  The only magazines that I still had (and i never had that many) were the creme de la creme.  A who's who of "high class" unrated porn (great stories).  Anyway, I go up to his room and hand over my collection, which he flips through, and thanks me for somewhat off-handedly.  "That's it?" I ask, somewhat befuddled by his lack of elation in his new found wealth.  "Um . . . you've heard of the internet right?" was his reply.

I am fortunes fool once again.  Little did I know that porno mags had already become the stone tablet of porn distribution.  In my defense, when he did get around to looking through them, he told me they were pretty sweet.  (Damn right they were sweet, they were my girlfriend for 3 years).

What I'm trying to say here is that, to me, the swimsuit issue is just another form of soft core porn.  Well developed airbrushed gorgeous porn.  But still porn.  And still soft core.  If I really want to look at naked ladies for some alone time, I am going to look at naked ladies.  Not almost naked ladies.  And if i'm being honest, and I think it's apparent that I am, I'm probably going to watch videos of those naked ladies in action, not still shots.  All and all, SI is a poor man's porn.  Or a 14-year-olds.  Maybe the swimsuit issue is today what the Victoria's Secret catalog was in my day.  aka. "better than nothing." (Though nothing can be fun too ;-))


  1. ah yes, i remember that hanukah well.... the best was that he came downstairs with all of the porn "hidden" under his shirt... another related story involving said cousin was when he was in middle school my dad hid the swimsuit edition from him because he didn't think it was appropriate. needless to say, he found it anyways...

  2. Oh Sarah Pearl, you are a ray of sunshine in a dreary world.

  3. I don't subscribe to SI because I don't hav e the sports gene. I'm lucky I can walk to class without incurring some kind of injury.
    But if they had a jockstrap issue, where well known athletes posed in just, well, their jockstraps--which would be more consistent with the whole theme of the magazine--I'd prolly subscribe. Or actually prolly just buy that one issue. Because the athletes in their gear has an appeal all its own, apart from any opportunities that might otherwise exist to see the male form in its entirety, static or not. And if it bothers any guys that they are also being objectified and ogled--and guys *know* what another guy is thinking when he is ogling--well, isn't that just tough titties? :-)

  4. tough titties huh. I think you DID see the issue.

  5. BTW, as a consequence of your porn confessions, we all now know you like to masturbate. Not that any guy has any doubt about that, but your mom has no doubt, either...

  6. I don't think you are giving my mom enough credit John. I'm sure my mom knew what I was doing pretty early. I mean, I lived there.