Our Issue with Swimsuits (or lack thereof) in Sports Illustrated
This week, the 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue hit the mailboxes of 70 million SI subscribers, every newsstand and media outlet, and at least 250 million people will view the thousands of digitally manipulated, nude or near-nude images online. The highly publicized cover features a 19-year-old young woman with so little covering her body that it seems her private parts must have been Photoshopped out in order to make the image suitable for newsstands.
Since it’s unlikely you will hear any popular media discuss the Swimsuit Issue’s serious blow to female equality, self-image, attack on women of color or its use of mainstream pornography packaged as “safe” for your coffee table, we are here to give you fair warning! I have chosen not to include any photos from my 40-year analysis because they are displayed everywhere else you will be looking (whether you want to see them or not), and Beauty Redefined is dedicated to de-normalizing these harmful images rather than promoting them in any way.
Every week, 30 million faithful followers catch up on the latest sports news in their weekly edition or online version of SI, the self-proclaimed “foremost authority” and “most respected voice” in sports journalism. And once a year, every year, those 30 million subscribers soar to more than 70 million and are joined by 250 million more online viewers for the always record-breaking event known as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Published since 1964, the SI’s 200-plus pages of nude to semi-nude females is truly a cultural event, generating global mainstream media coverage, TV shows, calendars, DVDs and mass amounts of memorabilia to push Sports Illustrated’s sales through the roof every spring. Since its birth, the Swimsuit Issue has earned $1 billion for SI’s parent company, Time Warner, which owns CNN, AOL, HBO, the CW, Time Inc, DC Comics and hundreds of other media companies. Talk about a media powerholder!
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue: “A Cult-Type Thing”
The increasing popularity – even inescapable presence – of the Swimsuit Issue alone is enough to warrant serious study of this magazine. But while numerous readers and viewers post the pinups on their bedroom walls, countless more feel those non-sports-related images should stay in blatantly pornographic outlets like Playboy and Penthouse. Either way, 44 years after the first edition of the Swimsuit Issue and hundreds of millions of viewers later, the magazine has become a popular culture phenomenon. Even back in 1979, one reader is quoted in the magazine as saying the annual issue is an “American tradition,” along with baseball and hotdogs, while another calls it “a cult-type thing” for male consumers across the country. Today, SI.com claims 32 percent of adults in America regularly read the Swimsuit Issue (22 million are reported to be women), and with its own YouTube channel, mobile video on demand, and record-breaking website hits, this magazine is quickly becoming a global spectacle.
With a gold mine of information yet to be examined academically in terms of the Swimsuit Issue, this study is an attempt to move beyond the basic arguments on the disempowering nature of the images. My main goal with this research is to expose the way harmful, objectified ideals about women’s bodies are normalized and made so mainstream that we don’t question them. With this objective and the hundreds of millions of SI viewers in mind, I analyzed issues from 1978, ‘88, ‘98 and 2008 to explore the ways images of nude or nearly nude women are made normal and mainstream in one of the most popular “sports” magazines of all time.
I, and many other scholars, argue that the SI Swimsuit Issue profits from a philosophy of constructing men as active, women as passive; men as subjects, women as objects; men as actors, women as receivers; men as the lookers and women as the looked-at; and I argue, men as consumers and women as the “to-be-consumed” (Betterton, 1987). Women today have been socialized to see themselves through the male gaze so that they are both spectators and spectacles. As spectators of themselves, women learn from popular media, in this case the wildly popular Swimsuit Issue, to compare their appearances with the media’s feminine ideal, becoming objects of their own gaze. This feminine ideal, as proven again and again by the Swimsuit Issue, leads women to internalize these mediated ideals and constantly work to live up to these perfected “norms” of beauty while leading men to believe these qualities are essential (and attainable) in a mate. Essentially, “the feminine ideal is tanned, healthy slenderness, with no unsightly bumps, bulges, or cellulite, and bodily and facial perfection that results from hours of labor: exercise, makeup, and hair care” ( Kuhn, 1985), and 20 years later, plastic surgery and digital manipulation.
When Pornography Goes Mainstream
Magazines like Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse are an obvious source for voyeurism, or the act of secretive looking at things of a sexual nature without being seen, and those sources do so without apology. The Swimsuit Issue is equally voyeuristic in nature, but does so under the guise of being “America’s foremost sports authority” and “most popular sports journalism magazine.” Essentially, this magazine offers sexual fantasies and blatant voyeurism hidden undercover as a sports magazine. Duncan put it best in 1993 when she said, “If they so desire, readers can sneak looks at the models while steadfastly denying that they buy and read the issue for pornographic content,” and she had NO IDEA what SI would look like in 2012, with the help of digital manipulation, surgical enhancements and reductions, and a global company owner with the power to publish and produce nearly any message and distribute it immediately.
SI masks its pornographic presence by placing the models in foreign locations with sandy beaches and tropical jungles so as to appear to promote travel destinations and the appreciation of nature. And don’t forget to take into account the idea of being a “swimsuit issue” is quickly becoming a lie. Instead, in the record-breaking 2008 issue, the models are wearing far less than swimsuits more than 50 percent of the time and only body paint for much of that time, which clearly invites voyeurism. When they do wear bathing suits, the most private of parts that are normally censored in mainstream media are repeatedly exposed in an “oops, I didn’t know that was showing” sort of fashion. Even the cover of the 2008, 2009, and 2010 issues features topless models with string bikini bottoms only big enough to cover the necessary amount of skin to avoid censorship.
When Women of Color Go Wild: Exoticization in SI
Though the original Sports Illustrated began in 1954, people of color were found solely in the first 10 years of publication as “hired help” by serving food and drink, performing physical labor, or entertaining in ways that U.S. readers would perceive as “exotic.” By 1982, the magazine had featured only two women of color anywhere within its pages, but they always had very light skin and typically “white” features. It may startle you to know the first dark-skinned model did not appear within the pages of the Swimsuit Issue until 1990 – more than 35 years after its initial publication, after the production staff received complaints about its exclusionary practices and realized their increasingly non-white readership would pay to see models of color. According to one anonymous editor in the early 1990s: “I think the magazine’s growing up, and being more aware of the social consequences of what it’s doing.” (Davis, 1997).
The 2008 Swimsuit Issue features approximately 72 percent white models and 28 percent non-white models, which closely resembles the U.S. population. However, the harmful issue at play in this magazine is not so much the number of representations anymore, but the type of representations. What I want to emphasize is how the “exoticization” of women of color within this magazine does NOT reflect a magazine being “aware of the social consequences of what it is doing” as one editor put it, but promotes dangerous ideas that whiteness is the norm and the most desirable, and anything else is an exotic deviation – even a less-than human object of desire.
History tells us women of color have historically been described as “exotic” in popular media, and it has always carried a sexual connotation. In the 2008 issue alone, I explain the details of how “exoticization” works: When a dark-skinned model appears, she is most often wearing a different animal print bikini on every one of the pages she is featured on, which makes her appear to be animal-like or “exotic.” One of only two dark-skinned models in the 225 pages of images is seen exclusively in leopard and cheetah print bikinis. In Western, white culture, there has long been a fascination with 
black women as different and ‘other.’ Therefore, this swimsuit model, representative of the non-white female population, reflects what is exotic, inhuman and even animalistic as she strikes seductive poses in her animal-print bikini. Need more evidence of this “wild” phenomenon? The 2008 magazine boasts a two-page spread featuring the only Hispanic model. She appears to be emerging from a muddy body of water, with dirt covering her face, neck and chest. With only a roughly one-inch piece of cloth visible on her body, this model doesn’t model anything but mud! Instead, she appears to be a less-than-human object made up of nothing more than breasts and dirt. Photographs such as this degrade non-white women, and even all of non-Western societies, by reinforcing a stereotype of non-white women as “different,” exotic and purely sexual.
I Object!
Let me be blunt here. Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is the epitome of female objectification. Packaged in a magazine that can be picked up and packed around, the semi-nude to nude females within the pages can be equally possessed and controlled. Do you want further evidence of the objectification overflowing the pages of this magazine? Because you’re going to get it! The Swimsuit Issue represents the very literal fragmenting of women into parts of women. Between 1978 and 1988, the models were often in two-page spreads where their chests were the focus of one page while their backsides and hips occupied the other. But in the late 1990s, editors made the classically pornographic move to a three-page centerfold spread. As the 2008 issue featuring cover model Marissa Miller demonstrates, three-page spreads allow for women’s bodies to be segmented and magnified into three parts: faces, chests and behinds. She is first identified as one page of chest and one page of a derriere as the reader turns to the centerfold. Appearing virtually headless, the only way to identify her face is to turn back one page and unfold it to find all three pages. If this magazine continues progressing – better yet, regressing – toward more extreme forms of female objectification, its next step will be to simply leave the heads off their models, blur out their faces or place bags over their heads.
In 1978, the swimsuit models posed in what we’d now call mildly seductive positions. Most often 
posed with flirtatious smiles and hands on hips to emphasize the curve of their waists, these women were acting to accentuate their best features – the objects of men’s desire. But as years passed, the models seem to more fully act like they were turning themselves into objects. By 1988, the cover model, Elle Macpherson, is staring intently into the camera while pulling her swimsuit down to expose her cleavage. Because her goal is to attract and satisfy the male gaze, she is acting with herself as a male would act if he were present. But just wait! The 2008 edition (and all the following) take objectification to the extreme. The 2008 issue, titled “Barely Bikinis,” is packed with models tugging at or removing bikini tops and, most often, bottoms. This is just one example of the models turning their own bodies into objects to be acted upon. Further, the title “Barely Bikinis” is an understatement: the majority of the models appear naked, missing either the top or bottom of their bikini or are wearing completely translucent coverings. More fully bare chests appear in 2008’s edition than any other Swimsuit Issue, which further proves the shockingly increasing amount of objectification taking place year after year.
The Swimsuit Issue’s Global Impact
The global exposure of the Swimsuit Issue, one of the self-proclaimed “most powerful phenomena in publishing and new media,” is having and will continue to have a worldwide impact: an impact on the way white and non-white women are viewed, and therefore, treated; an impact on the normalization of pornography as safe and socially acceptable; an impact on the standard of beauty we all use to evaluate women; an impact on profit increases in diet and beauty industries, as well as an increase in cosmetic surgery procedures. Objectification, exoticization and normalized pornography, occurring in more extreme and blatant ways each year, work to harm women and cannot be accepted in the U.S.’s “most respected voice” in sports journalism.
Speak out! If the harmful ideals identified in my research bother you and you’d like to help Beauty Redefined break the silence, please comment on this post and I will send this story and your comments directly to the editors and publisher of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
And if you’d love to slap a sticky note on any issue of SI with the happy truths “There is more to be than eye candy!” or “You are capable of much more than being looked at,” DO IT! Find them here.
Lexie Kite, 2011. “The Issue with Swimsuits in Sports Illustrated.” Excerpt from “Top Debut Paper” paper presented at Western Communication Association Conference in Anchorage, Alaska: April 2010.
References Berger, J. (1977). Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin. (Original work published in 1972). Davis, Laurel B. (1997). The Swimsuit Issue and Sport: Hegemonic Masculinity in Sports Illustrated. Albany State University of New York Press. Whatley, Mariamne H (1988). Photographic Images of Blacks in Sexuality Texts. Curriculum Inquiry. 18(2) pp.137- 155. Duncan, Margaret Carlisle (1993). Beyond Analyses of Sport Media Texts: An Argument for Formal Analyses of Institutional Structures. Sociology of Sport Journal. 10: pp. 353-372.
I love reading this stuff because its empowering. I hate reading it because it makes me sick to think of all those men-and even more so the women- who will add to their unrealistic expectations of body image.
True true, Lori! I am all over Twitter and the web trying to find ANY voices speaking out against the SI Swimsuit Issue and we are alone at the moment! While I’m sure they’re out there, we have GOT to get this message and others out there to even begin to counteract the horrible images and messages blasting across the airwaves. Breaking the silence is the first step toward actual empowerment!! Thank you for following. You are wonderful.
I live with two males: one is my boyfriend and the other is his 16 year old son. My boyfriend regularly subscribes to SI and of course, we received the lovely swimsuit edition in the mail yesterday. The 16 year old immediately grabbed it off of the counter and began perusing with gusto. Lovely. I have been doing a lot of “research” on mass media and its influences on body image for women. I also know that how damaging it has been on my own body image, and how I am affected by the media’s representation of women’s bodies daily. Argh.
Thank you for the viewpoints and research. Here’s to beauty redefined.
The more you read and take an interest in this topic, the more you will become angered. It’s a double edged sword. I almost envy women who ignorantly internalize these messages because to be aware and educated is an exercise in frustration and helplessness. I appreciate blogs and projects like the one Beauty Redefined is promoting (I wouldn’t be here otherwise) but societal powerhouses like Playboy and SI are so ingrained in our culture that I wonder how we’ll ever overcome it?
Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.
Wow, I was so glad to come across this website, and happy to know there are people out there who are standing up to the poor way the media portrays women. It is undeniably true that the SI Swimsuit Issue is pornography, and sad that so many people look at it without giving a single thought about what they’re actively participating in. It’s true that as women today, we’re constantly bombarded with what the media has decided an attractive woman should look like- She’s an incredibly air-brushed, underfed, over-exercised, and surgically enhanced woman, whose looks are nearly impossible to achieve in a healthy way. Thank you for helping me regain my perspective, and realize that I AM beautiful.
We’re glad you found us too! Thanks for your insightful comment – you’re exactly right. And I have no doubt you ARE beautiful!
I hate to think that this is the world being created for our kids to inherit.
But with men (like you) and women recognizing how harmful this is and helping our kids reject it, we’re going in a good direction, don’t you think?! :)
The day I found the issue under my son’s mattress is the day I decided to hate this magazine. My husband USED to get SI magazine because he’s a huge sport’s fan. I threw out that garbage issue not more than five seconds it came UNINVITED to my mailbox. I didn’t look at it. Don’t need to. It saddens me that women think it’s okay to gawk and comment on a woman for her looks. Bad enough men do it. Ewwwww. My son found it in the trash and I found it a year later. Yay. Glad he had 11 months of viewing what women will never aspire to. I had a nice talk with him after I took out all the pictures and left the ‘articles’ for him to read. ;) UGH. Try raising THREE boys into men ….GOOD men in this day in age. Challenge anyone?
Being a parent really complicates and magnifies the importance of this whole issue, doesn’t it? Thank goodness for involved and loving parents like you!
I cannot express how passionately I feel about this subject. Over the past few years I have tried vigorously to speak out about how objectification of women just may be the greatest evil of our time (or ever for that matter). Pornography addiction, low self-esteem, broken homes, eating disorders… are just some of the negative outcomes of this issue that affect men and women. Thank you for recognizing such an overlooked monstrosity. It is so reassuring to see there are other voices out there. Please let me know if I can help spread awareness on this issue in any way.
Rachel, what an amazing woman you are! I’m so grateful every time I hear more women have taken up this fight. SI is outrageous to me and I’ve got a 35-page doctoral research paper that spans 40 years of the SI Swimsuit Issue to back up my outrage in an academic voice :) I’ve done the same with Victoria’s Secret and others. One reason Lindsay and I post condensed versions of our research is so people can email, tweet, and Facebook these links far and wide and help other people give words to the feelings they feel when they see these harmful media messages. You’re obviously not alone in feeling like these images are a monstrosity! Please share this link and our site with anyone you think can benefit, and keep in touch with us! Email me at TakeBackBeauty@gmail.com if you’d like to be in contact about ways you could fight this fight for female worth in a scary media environment. Thank you SO MUCH for your beautiful message. – Lexie :)
Thank u for speaking against this current issue
This helped me with my research paper I’m writing; my central idea is how society teaches men to abuse women and even worse teaches women to abuse themselves.
Something we should have taken from the holocaust is the value of a human being. I’ts not based on any external factors. Also, Just like we wouldn’t want someone to like us cuz of our $, we shouldn’t want them to like us cuz of our bodies. Thanks again.
Last year I objected when a major chain store displayed pornographic fitness magazines next to a children’s toy display. Talk about indoctrinating our children with mindless drivel! I spoke with the manager (which was not hard!) and he agreed to have the vendor replace the offensive magazines or else he would move the display to a more adult area of the store. I have 4 boys and can not afford to sit idly by when I see such offensive media onslaughts. I want them to have the highest respect for women and that does not include pornographic swimsuit issues and all the female objectification that come with it.
Thanks for your amazing work!
Thanks for this article! I enjoyed it! I find the discussion of women athletes and their looks interesting. There’s something to be said for being a good looking athlete, just like male athletes, but it shouldn’t override their abilities. There’s a good discussion of this over at TC Huddle. I found your article looking for more opinions on this.
This is a good article. Thanks! Here’s the article if you’re interested: http://www.tchuddle.com/2011/07/women-athletes-and-the-need-to-objectify/
Thankyou so much for your article. I believe it is very important to stop objectafying women sexually in all types of mainstream media. It is just as bad for young boys as it is girls, infact in the long run it will be worse for boys as they will think that this type of fake beauty is really, but most girls won’t want to show their regular body because it can never compare, hell the modells own body can’t even compare to the made up doctored photos anymore.
We need to make sex more intement again, why do you think there is such an epidemic of sexual disfunction. We need to edjucate our youth, not bombard them with porn that will ultimetely effect their life in a negative way.
Again I thank you for bringing attention to this major problem!
This is exactly the type of thing we are studying in my Males & Females in the west class in university. This is a great article depicting the norms of our society. What I find equally as alarming is the fact that there are no men in any magazine. It is a Swimsuit Issue right? what about a suimsuit makes it that only girls may wear it? is it unacceptable for men to be seen as near or fully nude in a magazine centred on sports? (which is again, predominantly assumed to be a masculine inclination). I understand that they are appealing to the male audience, but that audience is also brainwashed and biased to believe that heterosexuality is the norm in our society. which further reinforces the notion that only women should be in the magazine, because the magazine is about sports, which is for men only, (because women dont watch sports right?) and men like women, there are no bisexuals or gays in the usual 30 million who read the magazine weekly?
thanks for sharing! I am a Masters/PhD student at Louisiana State University in sociology focusing on how women navigate beauty in their everyday lives…I am currently working on my thesis, which is an in-depth content analysis of beauty magazines from the USA and Uganda because I am interested in how images and people flow across national and cultural boundaries in a globalized world. I am a Christian and a feminist and am very frustrated by the media’s presentation of women and our bodies!
Thank you for your insightful commentary on these issues. I would love to see you produce articles that are geared to enlighten (gently) men who are so steeped in this media objectification that they cannot even see it for what it is. I have relatives that are kind loving men who are very much into women’s equal rights, but cannot see the common objectification and sexualization of women since they are so desensitized to it. They recognize the extreme stuff, but things like fun/sexy commercials or the SI swimsuit magazine are just something to be appreciated or are not so harmful as they can see. If you could come up with “tear-sheets” with non-inflammatory language and stats that can be used to open eyes in a gentle manner that would be so helpful! Also articles on how to teach children (especially boys) in child-appropriate language what gender stereotyping of toys is and why it is not healthy. This is such an important dialogue you are doing and going the next step with materials to help us educate and change one mind at a time, can make a big impact. Thank you for your hard work on this important matter!
Thanks for all you are doing. My husband and son are the biggest sports fans ever, but we refuse to subscribe to Sports Illustrated for that reason. We used to get it and request not to get the swimsuit issue, but it still felt like we were supporting it. I have never understood what the swimsuit issue claims to have to do with sports journalism.
I’ve always disliked Sports Illustrated particularly because of the swimsuit issue — and then the calendars that come out. Just terrible garbage. Great article; I’ll share.
I went to the gym to work out and watched a 5 minute segment on the SI swimsuit edition…they interviewed the model and flashed her nearly-nude pics the during the entire interview. I was so embarrassed for her. How demeaning and objectifying!
I thought Fox News was against pornography? So hypocritical.
As a psychotherapist and co-founder of The Women’s Therapy Centre Institute in New York I would like to comment on the mental health aspect of objectification. Women’s and girls efforts to manipulate their bodies to fit this false (digitalized ) ideal has reached epidemic proportions. The psychological damage which results from our toxic visual culture is inescapable with girls as young as 8 saying they hate their bodies and want to be thinner. This is not an issue of vanity and can no longer be trivialized.
I think Swimsuitless Edition would be a more appropriate title. Since when do naked women splattered with mud have anything to do with sports? (I thought mud-slinging was relegated only to politics– apparently not.) This kind of normalized pornography is despicable. I went to a children’s book signing at a well-known bookstore once, and was appalled to see a SI Swimsuit edition next to the checkstand– showing a model who was wearing nothing, but covering her breasts with her hands. I complained to the store about their flagrant display of pornography at a children’s event and was told “Oh, certain vendors buy spots for their magazines. We don’t have any control over what they print.” The employee did say that she would pass on my complaint to the management, and I told her that if they didn’t remove it, I would no longer shop at that store. It’s been two years and I still haven’t been back.
Thank you so much for shedding light and breaking the silence on this very important subject. As a girl who grew up in a home with two sisters who had eating disorders, I now look back and remember all the Victoria’s Secret catalogues that sat around our house. I think they strongly influenced our notions of what a woman “should” look like. These catalogues never felt right to me, but I figured they was okay because the models weren’t nude. How wrong I was! SI and VS are not harmless. They are influencing the lives of millions. Thank you for your work exposing normalized pornography for what it really is! I hope to pass along your messages to all I know, especially my children!
Brilliant article. I am a South African man and have over the past few years engaged in reading up on the topic of the sexualisation and objectification of women. I have done so because I am involved with a local anti-trafficking initiative and it is simply careless and irresponsible of corporations and the media in general to use women in the way they do – to say the least. I echo your sentiments in this conclusion of mine which I posted on my personal blog about a year ago: http://thestir.squarespace.com/journal/2011/3/21/sex-slavery-not-just-a-crime-but-a-culture.html
Women are the objects but both us men and them are victims of this system and as you mentioned, both us and unfortunately the ladies as well promote this objectification and victimisation.
It sometimes takes a bit longer for us men’s eyes to open up but one photo in particular really made me wonder (in South Africa the swimwear issue is published annually for the month of November – before the summer holidays). In that issue, a few years back, a well-known SA model sat on the beach wearing nothing but socks. I wondered, what on earth has a pair of socks got to do with swimwear and why on earth would anyone look at this picture other than to fantasise about having sex with this girl? It is obvious now, after my eyes have been fully opened that it’s hardly ever about swimwear at all, it’s plain and simply porn: Using the technique of fantasy to twist the most pleasurable and intimate physical act on earth, which has emotional and spiritual side-effects, to make money and in the process destroy society by preying on people’s weaknesses. Under normal circumstances people would say such practices are unethical and people who do that lack integrity.
You stated that you would forward all comments to Sports Illustrated and that has prompted me to comment. I am deeply saddened by the progression of this “Special Issue” from mildly seductive to absolute pornography. I am the mother of two daughters, ages 16 and 13 and am concerned that with the acceptance of such material as mainstream that they will internalize the message that in order to be attractive you must be pornographic.
I feel it is completely natural to want to be viewed as attractive, pretty and beautiful. However, the majority of models and stars today fling themselves into objectivity with complete abandon. If Sports Illustrated wishes to be the premier sports magazine and states that they currently are “America’s foremost sports authority” then the Swimsuit Issue should be unaltered pictures of competitive swimmers and divers, both male and female, in the same type of pictures as those they show of football players, soccer players, basketball players, etc. This would show readers strong, exceptional bodies that have been and are trained for one purpose. Sports Illustrated is not a fashion magazine so the fact that all the swimsuits will be similar is not an issue.
Leave the pornography to those who publish it unapologetically such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. I feel our world would be much healthier without such material but we do have freedom of speech which means that it will always be available in some form. However, freedom of speech also means that we have the right to have pornography free literature and programs. I sincerely hope that Sports Illustrated decides to lead the way in changing the media focus on sexualized images. Then they truly would be the “most popular sports journalism magazine”.
I heartily agree with this article and the objectification of women in not only SI but many other company’s today ie: Victoria Secret, Ambercrombie & Fitch, as well as Limited 2 that sell young girls–pre-teen girls–provocative clothing.
My husband used to subscribe to Sports Illustrated when we were first married, but as the Swimsuit issue became more, and more pornographic he cancelled it. HE cancelled it. Yes, there are plenty of men who are disgusted by the objectification of women–someone’s mother, daughter, sister, aunt, cousin, and friend. Unfortunately in today’s world many women see nothing wrong with such sexualized advertising claiming it shows the “beauty” of woman and a “healthy” body. Another example of women being duped by the media as to what beauty is.
As a mother of three sons I and my husband, work tirelessly to teach our sons that women are not objects, but rather people that they should show respect to through their actions, words, and deeds whether there is a woman in the room or not. Our family does not and will not support any business that demoralizes women for their own gain, after all that’s what the bottom line is, is it not? Profit.
Thank you for writing the truth.
It’s awesome to hear about those kinds of guys. And the funny thing is, when I have surveyed my male friends and relatives about what makes a woman “attractive,” they most often cite confidence – not looks, not thinness, not how scanty their bikinis are. Confidence in who they are as a person, and their abilities. So we’re being lied to all around. It’s only when we recognize it that we can do anything about it.
This flows over into so many other aspects of life, sadly. I started hoopdance about a year ago, and I keep up with several hooping blogs and sites. A documentary has been made about hooping – the hoop community is thrilled about this, as it is a serious look at hooping and hoopdance. Pro- and non-pro hoopers are lauding the documentary as a piece that will bring more respect to the art of hoopdance and the community at large. And so what do the producers choose for the main promotional poster? A back-side shot of a woman in hotpants with her cheeks hanging out, crop top with no bra, and her head cut off. I was so mad when I saw it. Hoopdance is one of those activities that is viewed in much the same way as belly dance – something that is only for “skinny, sexy, young” women – older, larger, and male people need not apply (despite the fact that some of the best hoopers, and Middle Eastern dancers, don’t fit into society’s definition of beauty – and I fight this attitude all the time when trying to encourage people to try this joyful and fulfilling activity). It’s not taken seriously as an art form by most people, just like belly dance. And how can people take it seriously when the promo poster for the first serious look at hoopdance shows a half-naked woman with no head? I’m sure the producers were thinking that the image they chose was fun, flirty, and colorful, but it ends up being harmful, because of the attitudes you outlined in this article.
Thanks for your work, sisters. We can only change this if we’re aware of it first. I appreciate everything you do and I hope to be a light within my community.
I too was taken aback when that issue hit our office last week! Putting the obvious porno aspect aside which has been handily adddressed here I want to comment on the “fashion” aspect of the issue. Since when is an ill fitting suit that makes the model look like she’s wearing her 10 year old kid sister’s bikini fashionable? Then upon closer inspection I found that nearly all the suits were outrageously priced – over $600 for a bikini! Really?
Let me begin this post by saying that I am entirely for the equal treatment of women in all regards. With that said, I think this website is irrational and quite frankly oversensitive. Before we criticize Sports Illustrated and call them sexist for “objectifying women,” we must consider that these women chose to be on the cover. These women had the ability to turn down the offer. And these women had every right to refuse any poses or bathing suits. With that said, we must also consider the basis by which these women CHOSE to be a part of the issue. Comparing this to pornography is unfounded as these women are wearing clothing that anyone can wear on any beach or in public in the united states. In order to claim that the wearing of bikinis is comparable to pornography, one would have to believe that the wearing of a bikini in any situation is the equivalent to nudity, which it clearly is not. Moving forward, we must also consider the concept of beauty. For the religious folk, one must assume that beauty is one in one’s natural state. This transcends the concept of creation, as we are born naked, so one can safely assume that one is most beautiful in one’s natural state: nude. These women, by displaying themselves in a nearly nude (not pornography!) state, they are portraying and celebrating their own beauty for the enjoyment of men and women alike. If you believe that is a crime, then you should probably reassess your concept of beauty. This website should be going after magazines that show unhealthy models with eating disorders as beautiful, not healthy, fit, professional athletes. (On a side note, the magazine makes it very clear that these women are athletes, thus celebrating their athletic ability).
Dear “buttaeous Maximoos” (Wow. What a mature name!),
I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you’re entirely ignorant. Based off of your comment, it’s quite clear that you know next to nothing about sexism, patriarchy, male privilege, the male gaze, the objectification of women, real beauty, health, or the numerous detrimental effects this the swimsuit edition and similar types of images have on young women.
The swimsuit edition absolutely encourages and causes girls to develop eating and exercise disorders in order to fit the image of “beauty” that is being sold to them, in addition to making girls worldwide feel insecure about their bodies and appearance. Read up on the male gaze and the objectification of women in advertising, then get back to me.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the woman consented to being photographed as no more than a piece of meat, her portrayal is problematic and only ends up hurting women (along with men and their ideals of “beauty”, as exhibited perfectly by you). Need proof? Just ask yourself, when was the last time you saw men and their bodies being objectified, sexualized, exoticized, and used as bait to sell merchandise the same way women’s have? When was the last time you saw a man pose sexually, barely clothed, in a way that didn’t empower him, but that made him an object to be consumed by the masses, as though he were no more than a piece of meat? When was the last time that you ever saw a man being presented in such a one-dimensional way, with nothing accentuated about him whatsoever than his sexual organs, and with any hints to personality or intelligence thrown out the window (i.e. having his head cut off from the photo)? NEVER.
Women have been historically consistently treated as no better than objects of desire to be consumed by the masses and to sell products, devoid of humanity or emotion or thought. Our bodies have been altered and hurt and dissected, both physically and visually, simply for the pleasure of the males that will consume us. The ramifications of this are endless and horrid: We cannot walk down the street or go to school without being judged for our looks. We are constantly encouraged to judge ourselves and to judge other women. Our entire worth goes into looking as “desirable” as possible, not for us, but for a man. It’s one thing to enjoy being beautiful (I encourage everyone to do so!), it’s another to constantly have to worry about living up to an unattainable standard of beauty. Far too many women and girls have died already from this pursuit for us to stay silent.
The profits made by these corporations and the pleasure that the masses get from our objectified bodies aren’t worth the horrors that we have to endure. Enough is enough.
Oh, and by the way, the swimsuit edition is totally porn. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time studying (and enjoying, and hating) porn, I can tell you for a fact that:
1) These images were created for the sole purpose of sexualizing these women to appeal to male consumers
2) These male consumers go on to masturbate to the images of these women and fantasize about them, the same way that they would do with porn and fetish models
3) These women aren’t wearing anything in most cases, thus making it quite clear that the real focus of the swimsuit issue is not swimsuits, the healthy bodies of female athletes, or the girls themselves, but the girls’ sexual body parts and what men dream that they can do to them.
The swimsuit issue is completely inappropriate and purely pornography. I can’t believe a young teenage girl is on the cover practically naked. Thank you beautyredefined for this wonderful article. I will always stand by your articles and mission!!!!!!
I wish SI would stop the swimsuit edition. It’s ridiculous, has nothing to with sports, and it really gives the message that women are not beautiful unless they’re practically naked. Taking off your clothes is not an athletic endeavor and has no place in a sports magazine. Actual athletes- people who have spent their whole lives shedding blood, sweat, and tears to rise to the top of their sports- should be offended.
How can you do a commentary on the 2012 swimsuit edition without a single reference to Chris Paul? That photo shoot was awesome (tic).
Now that I think about it, I don’t know what it says about us that after looking through all those pages of scantly-clad women, all my buddies and I could talk about was how chubby Chris Paul is for an All-NBA point guard. Probably has something to do with the devaluation of women and only appreciating them for the moment.
Just stumbled onto your website, and couldn’t be more thrilled to see someone speaking out against what has tragically become so mainstream. Porn is so harmful, and is so (puzzingly) accepted by most people – sort of a “boys will be boys” mentality. It’s too bad. I think we should have more confidence in what men are capable of. I have known so many who, far from letting their sex drives control their brains, use their brains to control their sex drives. Three cheers for all of the wonderful men out there who don’t tolerate the objectification of women!!
Just stumbled upon this website. You ladies need to CHILL OUT. As a 23 year old heterosexual male, there is nothing that I find more appealing than a beautiful, scantily clad young woman. It’s not because I am sexist or misogynistic. I’m just a guy. We’re visual and we’re horny. Every time I hear women complain about the “objectification” of other women, I can’t help but think that the women doing the complaining are either ugly or very jealous of attractive females. The models aren’t being forced to do anything against their will. They know that they are attractive, and who can blame them for wanting to make a living modeling?
When I was 14 there were a few very pretty girls in my class. Some of them were quite developed. Some of them weren’t there yet but had beautiful faces. As a 14 year old boy, I couldn’t believe the bikinis these girls would wear. String bikinis were just becoming popular at the time, and I LOVED seeing these girls I went to school with hardly wearing anything at all. We all went to Catholic schools. The parents of the girls let them wear these tiny strings. Why? Because, believe it or not, not everybody is a prude who thinks that the human body is shameful and that a girl being sexual and using her looks to entice boys is a stupid, immoral slut. Of course, the average and below average girls resented the pretty girls for getting us guys’ attention. Can’t blame them. In the nine years since then, I’ve realized that 1. Girls, beautiful or not, want to look and feel sexy for boys. 2. Girls resent other girls who are more attractive than themselves. 3. Guys, whether straight or gay, are visual creatures who lust after beauty.
You ladies just need to accept the fact that not everybody is created equal. Believe it or not, men can be very insecure about their looks as well. Being short, having a small penis, or going bald (like I am at a young age) can all eat away at a man. How many bald movie stars do you know? Yes, there’s Jason Statham, Vin Diesel, and Bruce Willis, but they are all complete tools. 99% of guys on TV or in the movies have full heads of hair. Why? Because having a full head of hair on a guy, just like having long legs or big boobs on a girl, is seen as more attractive. Its life.
And knock it off with the “objectification of women is desensitizing my son/husband and creating an unrealistic and unachievable portrayal of beauty for young girls.” Ladies, if you had any idea what went on in a guys head age from about 13 until the end of his life, you would be FREAKED out. Believe me, looking at young girls in bikinis is mild and not a big deal. Its not like being a nice guy or being in a relationship or getting married magically turns off a guy’s desire for variety. And for the last time, pics of girls in bikinis is NOT pornography.
Why are you people so prude? The human body (especially the female) is so beautiful. Why not compliment these girls for working out and making their bodies close to perfection? These models aren’t helpless innocent girls who are being exploited by evil men. They are grown women who can think for themselves. And as a man, I am sick of feminists acting like there is something wrong with me because I like looking and pretty scantily clad girls. I am a guy. Nature made me this way. I like big boobs, flat stomachs, round asses, long legs, striking eyes, shimmering hair, tight pussies, straight teeth and pretty faces. SI is a business. You can’t blame them for tapping into the most profitable and reliable market in the history of mankind: sexy women.
Ha ha! Wow, you didn’t even read the story. Sorry you’re angry, but I think it’s misdirected :)
You are truly pathetic and have no idea what normalized pornography means or what women face every single day.
The fact that you think that it’s OK for women to be used as no more than pieces of meat to sell products to masses of men is disgusting. Is that all my being is to you? A set of sexual organs to be used to fuel your desires and make money? A nice pair of tits and ass to be used as a carrot to dangle in front of your nose?
Take a seat. You’re disgusting.
Women have solely been the ones treated like this, NEVER men. You are sexist for buying into this if you’re not going to take a step back and listen to what women have to say about this and why it’s problematic. When it comes to sexism, it’s OUR voices that matter and deserve to be heard, not yours, “23 year old heterosexual male”.
This has nothing to do with being prude. I, and most other feminists, are sexually liberated. I love sex with my boyfriend. However, there’s more to me than my sexual body parts, and that’s what you fail to see. Until I see you advocating for national magazines that dehumanize and objectify young boys the same way this magazine does to young girls, your opinion means nothing. Oh wait, does the thought of having a 3-page spread in Sports Illustrated showing a young, 19-year old boy in a banana hammock that he’s suggestively pulling down, with his chest and privates emphasized not in an empowering way, but in a dehumanizing, objectifying, vulnerable, exoticized way, and with all vestiges of humanity and personality removed from the picture as his head is cut off from the photo or folded away from it, make you sick? Now what about the thought of young boys being exploited and sexualized this way in every page of most magazines, and on TV, and in films, ads, pictures, and everything else that you consume? Does it make you sick yet? If not, you’re heartless. If so, then why don’t you understand how the exploitation of our bodies on such a grand scale is sickening to us?
As a man, you will never know what it feels like to experience sexism. You are surrounded by positive, empowering images of yourself in the media. You will never know what it feels like to be made vulnerable, to be shamed constantly for your looks by everyone around you, to constantly be trying to achieve an unattainable standard of beauty, or to be reduced to nothing more than your genitals for other people to use, buy, or sell. You will never know what it’s like to get an eating disorder from seeing so many pictures of women and girls that have proportions that you know you can never achieve. You will never want to kill yourself because of how you look, or have others threaten to kill you because society has conditioned them to view your body as an object, not as a human being.
You will never know. So until you start thinking with an open mind and start researching this issue and advocating for healthy, realistic, and honest representations of men and women in the media, you need to stay quiet, or stay far away from those of us who are trying to do so.
John’s comment is proof how badly the media has affected both men and women. He only likes round butts, shimmering hair, etc. He basically dissected a woman into parts. No one female has all these: they are either photoshopped, get plastic surgery, hide things, etc. It is also a myth that men are the only ones who are visual, women are too. Women have sexualt thoughts as well.
How would you feel if it all changed? If hardly any women were shown in a sexual way in the mainstream media? That all you saw were men naked, and you could count easily how many times you saw a naked woman? When you looked at the lad’s mags it was filled with men and how to look as good as them, and then when you looked at what women were looking through it was a very small ideal of how men should be?
I’ve already seen men complaining about seeing naked men in programmes, etc., even though it is still only a very small percentage of our media. Would you say they were jealous, or ugly? People seem to understand their reasons more and I feel it’s down to a bias, and us being used to seeing women naked for centuries, where as men aren’t sexualised very often. It is shown as a weakness that men shouldn’t be doing. A vulnerability.
There isn’t anything wrong with being attracted to women, or men. There isn’t anything wrong with liking looking at naked men, or women. It’s how you do it and how one-sided it is. It’s easy for you to say those things because the media is, sort of, in your favour, for now, but how would your opinions be if it was changed?
And this view is starting to spread into a male ideal, hurting men: more boys are developing eating disorders. Maybe then people will start caring about how disjointed towards each other, and the world we’ve all become.