2014 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Revealed.
Wow!
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
= new reply since forum marked as read
You do realize criticizing people for their looks is frowned upon here? 
is the intended action verb the viewer is supposed to envision. 
And somehow guys are never posed that way for photos.
It's all about self-defense and avoiding thinking about one's own perceptions, or avoiding challenging socially accepted beliefs; switching the subject, smoke-screening, ad hominems, double standards, reductio ad absurdams ......
One nice thing about that negative side of DU--it makes me read articles on Critical Thinking, which is good stuff.
Two can play at that game.
no matter how true the overall issue. Some folk read the post, come to the phrase "cock tease" and they can't get past it.
There is truth, and brutal truth, and some folks cannot handle brutal truth as it offends them on a visceral level. Another example of this is the depiction of scenes from a battlefield. In our society it is OK to show our "brave soldiers" "tastefully wounded" but not the gory reality of hideous burns, missing limbs, and the mess of abdominal wounds. I remember getting vicious criticism from folks on the Left for posting a picture of a young girl with most of her foot blown off (a victim of U.S. cluster munitions) because people said I had crossed the line. It was OK to TALK about children being maimed and killed by our callous and careless military action, another things to SHOW the results.
Just my advice, know your audience and pick your words accordingly. Or dive right in and enjoy the pie fight that ensues.
Your point is absolutely right.
I've tried to parse my words more carefully after having had this happen a time or two before.
But.....sometimes, I can't use social niceties when the point needs to be made loudly.
high school dances, and rat packs have all been my teachers.
"only finding women of interest for their ASSets. --Particularly when women of achievement and substance are rarely rarely rarely featured."
Your words.
I thought you were offended by the notion that nekkid people only grace magazine covers because of their physical attributes.
Fine. How many of these people have you ever heard of?
Dammit I wish that drawing ink I like was back in stock.
Anyway, those are great! Stunning! Very sexy.
Still, it's a drop in the ocean if we compare to the ubiquitous use of the female body......that's the parity thing I'm harping on.
And she's still fabulous. 1991, btw.
I don't think there'd be much more than a .05 percentage out of all their covers, but.......
I want to see equivalence! Not equivocation!
I talk with my hands which would preclude me reading the magazine in its intended context.
I have admired women for many reasons over my years, but prefer REAL women as opposed to the digital homuculi found in magazines.
Not hard to figure out what you're imagining in your mind is made up?
Well since it seems to be entirely too difficult for you to explain I wi assume it's my assertion that your "I see men and women as equals" or whatever the fuck it was does not affect reality.
Well, here's a newsflash for you: it doesn't.
Just as those who claim they 'don't see color' are simply esconcing themselves in a comfortable little bubble of white privilege where they don't have to notice the countless ways that the lives of people of color are impacted every day by racism... so are those who blissfully ignore how deeply misogynist our patriarchal society is.
Do you really think any rational person believed your attempt to claim your "confusion" about rape stemmed from the differing definitions of legal drunkenness in different states?
What do you think happens when someone claims they've been raped after a night of drinking? Do you think the cops to back in time and measure blood alcohol levels?
Yeah, again, so done. 
For some reason, you thought it had merit. You said it was "confusing".
Given that you did so extensively, and about such a cut and dry issue, it's an insult to women that you're still active this board.
And I barely posted in that thread, genius.
Hostility is the same as someone politely questioning your hyperbole and blanket statements.
What a world...
this is hardly novel behaviour.
Now, is it fair? Well, are we prepared to say that their are certain words no one is allowed to use in any context or to make a visceral point?
I have a co-worker who is Jewish who makes the occasional joke "Well, this Heeb is hungry, time for lunch." Is it wrong for him to say that? I would never call any person of Semitic descent any deprecatory noun, but am I in trouble for using the word to simply recount the event to make my point?
The same question applies to a variety of other minorities/races and various words which are "taboo" when used by non-members. I am of very recent Irish-Catholic descent (mother's side) and serious rural descent (West Virginia) on my father's side. I have at various times referred to myself as "Papist Hillbilly" and "Paddy Joe-Bob Mick" (though in reality I an an atheist with little patience for Neo-Confederate viewpoints). Am I allowed to do this?
As I also mention in another post, context is EVERYTHING with words.
In this instance, the word "cock tease" was tossed out by a female poster and she was criticized for using a "vulgar" "sexist" phrase to refer to women. But she did NOT call the women on the SI cover "cock teases" she referring to how SI used them as "cock teases", a subtle, but important difference.
It all comes back to the context of language. I would not have chosen to use the phrase in the way BlancheSplanchnik used it because, yes, I am male, and it would be too easy for my point to be lost in the ensuing accusation that I was being sexist/insulting. I cannot make such choices for BlancheSplanchnik, as I do not presume to make decisions on how any person, male or female, should express themselves.
However, you will note than now, I, a male, have in fact, used the term "cock tease". I have chosen to do so to make a point about context, and the context of my remarks should make it plain that my intentions are not in the least bit sexist/derogatory.
That being said, it is an even money bet that you could find a number of people on DU who would condemn me as a misogynist for what I have just written.
Yet another oblique canine reference... but yeah, we're the uncivil ones...
Ah, always the hallmark of someone who values the inherent humanity of all individuals.
So, cut to the chase. Who is a bigot, and against who?
I know I'm supposed to be a horrible, awful, no-good human being because I won't condemn terrible vile horrendous horrific genocide-enabling planet-crushing galaxy destroying universe annhilating things like the photo of 3 attractive women on a beach, up there in the OP.
Needless to say, I don't buy it. Or, in the immortal words of Baron Munchausen, Your "reality", sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
So-- you'll excuse me if I want more specifics.
WTF? 
If a man called a woman a douchbag this thread would get SHUT. THE. FUCK. DOWN!
Of course, Odin help you if you decide to respond in kind.. the wailing and victim playing would be deafening.
But certain rules apply to certain people.
There aren't any women that enjoy looking at the swimsuit issue?
Nice try. There are no women that enjoy the swimsuit issue?
I don't know if SI is interested in "pretty boys" as I do not work for them, nor have I ever asked them. I don't think you know either, nor have you asked them.
As far as "boys" go, sorry not interested. I find it a bit icky that you keep using that word.
Can't have worthwhile communication that way.
edit to add - What insults?
Yes, literary conventions. Using extreme language to burst a paradigm......or at least fracture it. Lol.
.
.
"A feminist insult"? That "d word", used as a pejorative demeans femininity. That would make it an anti-feminist insult.
.
.
Anyway....please, proceed to hate on me, if it pleases you. Enjoy!
Your hate-on, I mean. That's all.
And, calling someone out like that, for no practical reason, except to ....what? Stand firm in your misuse of the word "feminist"?
Use another DU member's post from two months ago, which is unrelated to this discussion, and whom you seem to dislike, to use as a means to besmirch me by association. Or something?
Huh? Why? In a jejune attempt to make me feel bad, or score a point for yourself? Tsk tsk. TOS, and all.
Have fun.
W.R.T. seabeyond......You seemed to be referring to her negatively, and trying to project your attitude towards her onto me. Therefore, "besmirch".
Personally, I find seabeyond to be a courageous, kind hearted and incisive voice. She brings sharp insight to many social issues, including gender issues.
nastiest shit said to me is by other women. Both here and in real life. (some) Women are other women's WORST enemy...imo.
Bravo on this post!
Just to play "devil's advocate" here
You know..it never ceases to amaze me how the filthiest terms used to describe women on DU come from women.
Isn't that covered under the same proviso that allows gays to use the word "queer" and "faggot" but proscribes its use by straights? Or the use of certain racial slurs by members of the particular racial group, but not by non-members?
If so, what is the problem? If not, why not? Isn't context important? if not, why not?
Not looking to pick a fight, simply fascinated by the non-uniformity of the rules.
with the Rude Pundit, you know what you are getting, as it is in the name.
Also, when reading what someone wrote, the reader provides the tone and context based on their own mood and worldview.
I've seen occasional shock at the Rude Pundit here.
Our own filters, mood, worldview.....yes, so very true. I'm a rather animated speaker. When I type, i try to convey that with capitalization or italics and so forth. Or I get hyper-logical, to try and convey what I'm thinking. But it still doesn't always come across as I intended.
" A "media whore" will do, say or write anything which will make them money and/or the center of attention."
I see your point, and raise you:
People who take Patriarchy and sexism personally (as in, "I'm not sexist or in any way affected by the patriarchy!"
will go through some convoluted gyrations to justify highly objectified, bizarrely posed, airbrushed 'girly' pics on the cover of a pop rag."
I've always thought the annual swimsuit issue to be an odd little tradition. Not that I don't mind looking a pretty body but really, there are other magazines for that. I guess with the college and pro football seasons over, they need something to boost sales until baseball gets going.
I believe it's (non swimsuit female covers) less than 10%. I'd like to see them do better.
Moles, scars, freckles etc are considered "imperfections" that must be excised. Waists are narrowed, legs are lengthened, faces elongated, to create "symmetry" not found in nature. Skin tones are lightened on people of color to make them "whiter".
Here is a nice selection of some of the messier hack jobs:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-cringeworthy-magazine-cover-photoshop-fails
I am a Trekkie of considerable vintage (sufficiently old that I am unoffended by the term "Trekkie" and I have met pretty much every cast member from every show up through Voyager. I have also met quite a few folks from Xena, Doctor Who, Supernatural, etc. and I can tell you that "reality" is quite different from the magazine cover. The majority of actors are on the small side (5'7 and under, and the working ones have BMIs on the south side of normal. However, on magazine covers, their skin is plasticized, any and all blemishes (real or imagined) are removed, and they are made to look THINNER and TALLER than they actually are.
The scary part is that what is being done with magazine is becoming possible in movies/TV as well. "Digital makeup" is becoming the norm.
in all contexts from my algebra teacher to my wife of 28 years.
We both enjoy looking at men and women in their myriad of forms for a variety of reasons, including the aesthetic.
?w=600&h=785
Men have not been objectified for centuries. It's one thing to be the dominant sex and the other to be the dominated. So this sort of thing is a lot different (haha one thing that really is "different" .
But we still want to be people, looked at overall, not just for our looks while we are young and only if they are "good enough." Men have that.
two things you said really jumped out at me:
"This is a sports magazine, and the cover has nothing to do with sports."
and
"the media...portrays reality through the male gaze" (great line btw)
perhaps through the male gaze, in a strange and underlying way, the swimsuit issue of SI is about the "sport" of sex
just a weird thought
which would further explain why
"It's an annual celebration of the sexual objectification of women, intended to cater to their main audience - men who are capable of enjoying and appreciating such treatment of women." (as you stated)
If you say so.
Oh, yeah, this one looks oddly familar:
Men on the overs of sports illustrated are shown as active professionals in their element; on the field, in the water, acting their game;
They are portrayed as powerful, centered, active, and professionals who are doing things. There are some standard after-shoot touchups done of course, but the men's bodies are not altered or sculpted
Now compare to the swimsuit covers:
These women are not potrayed as athletes - no offense to Kate upton, but i think that would be a hard sell. They're models, which, hey, no issue there. The issue is in comparison. They are passive. They are posed, not active. They're not engaged with anything except the camera - and by proxy the person looking at the image. Notice too, how they're all either divested of a piece of the bikini or are in the process of removing it? They are presented not just as objects, but as offerings - presents that unwrap themselves, oh boy! The issues are about how much skin the magazine can show and still get an above-the-counter display. Gone are any sort of insightful articles about the sports world - it's butts, boobs, and thighs
I enjoy looking at beautiful women, I imagine most straight men do. I regard it as just a natural damn thing we do, to be honest. But it's important to recognize too when a woman's body is being sold to you as a molded, modeled, and modified product expressly for that. Not as a person but as a thing.
Here are SI covers of female athletes...
?w=510&h=382
I imagine that outfit is rather racy for 1964, what with being a two-piece and all (compare to Sue Peterson's 1965 outfit, for instance.) But the presentation itself is different.
First, there's still sports content - Apparently back in 1964, there were still sports going on in midwinter... like boxing apparently. Oh, how times have changed, when we no longer do anything between the superbowl and early season playoffs...
Second, the shot itself is very different. For one, it's an actual photo, not a heavily-edited composite. I guess one could argue technological limitations vs. cost, and i guess there would be a point - these days when you can find an intern who makes lolcats for a living and pay him in hostess treats to touch up a model's picture, there's not much incentive to not go ahead and do so.
For another, the composition itself. Babette March is not staring at the camera, but looking off to the side. She's rubbing her nose and grinning; it actually looks like a candid photo of a person having, as the tagline says, "fun in the sun."
The angle is so that the camera is slightly higher, looking down - this actually gives prominence to her face and profile, rather than her ah, attributes. Some other examples of this from the 1964 issue:
Compare the the 2014 issue cover in the OP, or the ones I posted. The focus of these is clearly NOT the models' faces.
Another comparison, one I already pointed out - the models from recent issues are stripping or already sans top. Which kind of makes the swimsuit edition kind of a head-scratcher. Babette not only isn't stripping, she's actually not in a suggestive pose at all. She's a woman, in surf, in a period-sexy swimsuit.
While both are objectification - selling a woman as a product based on her physical appearance - the trend has has actually reduced the "value" of the "objects" in question - Babette is being "sold" as a whole person, while the models on this years cover are being "sold" as butts who happen to have faces somewhere above. And I will try to not use so many quote marks in future paragraphs,
"Dog"? Are you joking? No, that isn't a gendered slur.
if you completely agree with *some* people.
You know the new feminism shames women for the choices they make. Where you call other women douchbags and dogs. Fuck yeah!!!!! Who needs men to oppress you when your fellow women will!!
Hop on board the real feminist train.
Fucking disgusting.
Unlike some I have a mind of my own, experiences of my own and can draw my own conclusions.
What? The shaming of these young ladies? Yes, I agree.
The bolded part is a lie--give me links of ME not giving a shit about feminist issues--oh wait, not agreeing with you means not giving a shit.
I am tolerant and accepting of these womens choices. I will not shame them for doing this. It's a sad day when I see other women doing what men use to get blasted for doing.
I'm not tolerant of you and others telling me how I should think, what I should believe---that's the very fucking definition of oppression.
The above is one of the most hypocritical things I think I've ever seen you type. Especially the bolded part. Who the fuck died and left you in charge of the definition? This is why there are different waves of feminism.
I've been down this road with you. YOU who say the most awful shit to other women that don't walk directly in line with you. You'll have to pardon me if I say your opinion means this much...
What utterly MRA-ish spin that is. Interesting.
As for your insistence that being a cheerleader for objectification is just disagreeing with me, all I have to say is ... if that confused post which seems more focused on nursing grudges than communication about feminist ideals, is what passes for feminist discourse with some feminists, well that is just incredibly fucking sad.
For your education:
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php/issues/objectification-of-women/
yourself can you? It's your way or no way. Condescending and nasty is the only thing you know.
Being a woman is all about choice sorry YOU don't get that. How about this....your feminism is a load of bullshit (which is what you called mine in your now deleted post)--these women are being shamed as well as DU women that don't agree with you (check out your MRA insult). And don't even come at with what's insulting racially--when the first thing you guys do is throw out a racial comparison when you're not getting your way.
I'm proud of the type of feminist I am. I'm proud of the women I help. I'm proud of the strong independent daughter I've raised, and the son I've raised. I like my feminism. If you disagree that means I'm doing it right.
I've been through too much in my life and been insulted by far better people, than you. I will always speak out when I see you or anyone else 'beating up' on another woman for not 'practicing' you version of feminism--which includes beating up on other women and shaming them.
***this was in response to your self deleted post. ^^^
This is in response to you accusing me of MRA spin. It's almost as bad as when you called me a rape apologist REPEATEDLY--ignoring the fact that I am in fact a rape survivor. Like I said you only know nasty and condescending.
I'm a cheerleader for women ALL women not just the ones that fit in my narrow definition of what's feminism and what isn't.
Peace.
I don't usually get involved in these threads but sometimes you have to say enough. 
edit: spelling
There's nothing bullshit about believing that women should be able to make their own choices every bit the same as men do. Just because they're choices you don't approve of doesn't make it bullshit, it just means you've got to learn that women are individuals and you've got to learn to accept that they're going to make choices you don't like.
In my experience One Voice has always been respectful and polite in her discussions on DU. And the feminism she talks about is the sort of feminism I've always been into
Thank you.
And the heavy sighs, eye rolling, and barely concealed teeth-grinding.
"Choosy-Choice", ugh. "Freedumb", eyeroll eyeroll.
There's this load of crap commonly referred to as "CHOICE FEMINISM".
You're free to determine for yourself whether it's super awesome feminsty goodness or whether (like most feminists have decided) it's in fact a bunch of idiocy.
First you'll have to learn enough about it to realize that it's not the same thing as saying 'women can't make their own choices'.
And no, nobody on this thread is saying that these models shouldn't have the right to pose for "sports magazine" covers.
This kind of twisting of issues is so far fucking beneath this site.
Well, at least it was. Now this fox news bullshit is fucking par for the course.
Criticizing objectification IS NOT THE SAME as "shaming" models. If people truly can't comprehend that then things are truly worse than I feared.
and call it feminism because they are women, is one reason why things are so fucked up.
Choice feminism has been discussed for years now. Years. It's the idea that a woman's agency is paramount, and whatever she does is a feminist action because she's a woman and she decided to do it.
Imagine if people declared themselves liberals but decided that whatever they thought was right was therefore a liberal ideal because they're a liberal and they said so. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
She's the one who decided to lower the tone of our discussion and I don't mind giving back what people dish out.
And ... yeah... about your blood running cold... well, thanks for sharing? 
Maybe you should just spare yourself the trauma and put me on ignore if it's too much to handle.
As for alienating people, that's another subject that feminists have been discussing for years. Maybe someday you might read about how useful it is to cater to people who have absolutely no interest in educating themselves about feminist issues.
It's great that people help people IRL and care about individual women and women's issues in general. But it is just fucking offensive to treat feminism like some kind of vague hobby, and come out swinging and defending objectification in a pathetically obvious flamebait thread, using MRA talking points like "women who don't like objectification are just shaming the sexxxy wimminz!!!" cause that's so incredibly anti-feminist that only the most clueless could miss it.
How exactly does someone 'cheerlead' a thread? If you'd read what I said, I said that I do think that cover objectifies women. Is there some certain number of posts I have to repeat that in, or a certain level of all-caps rage I have to attain to be considered a real feminist?
Tone policing? I told you what others have already told you. Yr posts are condescending and rude, and you were nasty to One Voice. Not sure what that's got to do with 'tone'. But please tell me about this transparency thing. Did this co-founder of HoF suddenly out herself as an MRA type or something?
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Men who like sports and women.
Let's say you started a magazine for gay men, would you put women on the cover in such a manner as SI does or men?
Probably men - and that is borne out by the many gay magazines that do just that.
Take a look at Curve Magazine, for lesbians, just do a google image search on their covers:
It's a magazine. It has an audience. Some men, I know this might be shocking, love women and seeing some on the cover is appealing to them.
Not because they hate women, want to keep them down, etc. - anymore than gay men's magazines hate men when they plaster them in sexy attire/poses on their covers.
As evidenced by their sales.
But a few don't like it and believe that because it exists those young women were exploited, men hate women and only see them as sex objects, women who buy it are 'cohorts', etc and so on.
Or maybe a lot of people aren't freaked out by folks wearing next to nothing and see something a few others don't.
I get the whole idea that all people are in their own way beautiful. We don't 'need' women like this on the cover and it does not represent all women - and it would be nice if we all realized that this is just one subset of the entire group.
Thing is, I think most people do realize that. Like I said when I found out my X had Parkinson's it is a damned shame we don't show people like her in beer ads and such. And it is.
On the other hand I get that folks like looking at beautiful people in such dress and poses and I am as ok with that as I am women and others looking at men who are physically fit and more attractive than myself (which is about most the human male population).
It is akin to this for me: some people look at the desert and see it as a hot, dry, miserable place. I look at it and see the wild life, the cactus and sage brush, and so on. Post a pic of a snow covered mountain and most people would probably click that they liked it more than the dusty old desert. It would sell more calendars, paintings in homes, etc. People have preferences for 'beauty' and I don't get why that is a 'bad' thing.
It might be ignorant to some extent but it also comes down to personal preference.
My preference? I don't buy the magazine. I don't read their website (though I do check scores on there at times). Their magazine, their choice, and the same goes for the person who buys it. And just because some like it does not mean I think they are all somehow lower than me in the world or are evil or bad or hate women or think women are just sex objects.
People have preferences when it comes to beauty and what is 'sexy'. It is natural and not always some part of some great conspiracy. Is it short minded?
In my view, yes. But then I have different tastes and preferences myself. Calling people names and telling them they hate women is a bit much to me (misogyny definition is: "a hatred of women" .
I personally don't like how women are often displayed in this society, but I don't think it is because we all hate women. My problem comes in, on DU, with how some folks try to define others as haters and such while harboring their own hatred and biases. We can do better as a society in representing women. And we should. And I am certainly on that team - but I have been kicked off it and labeled because I don't always agree on the motivations assigned to others.
"Female athletes shouldn't have to wear skimpy clothing to get on a magazine cover."
And that is not the case in sports like Chess
Problem is people buy up things like this because that is what they like. And to me, if you like pretty women, that is just fine.
If you are a true sports fan of women (and as I mentioned elsewhere people like Susan Polgar) you don't spend your time reading magazines that do what SI does.
Women read it. Pose for it. Like it. Good for them, their choice. Not mine to make for them or to judge.
I don't like or read SI (though, as I have mentioned I do check their site and others for scores). Those that do? Their business and it is aimed at them, not me.
I was so worried that I was going to be once again desperately asking you to read post 189, in the hope that you'd actually care and go read it.
You've brightened my day.
BTW ~ Love your avatar! 
Thanks!
rocktivity
No way are those ladies 50.
That was hysterical.
I wonder if there's a market for Kinky Folk Tales involving Leprechauns?
For some reason, it's even funnier in German.
questionairre with no controlling factors in the 80's, they have found that women are more sexually stimulated thru visual, because we are more sexually fluid. where as a man tends more toward only the sex they naturally go toward. cause they are more repressed. pretty much telling you how it is culture and not biological in ones value of sexual stimulation.
or you can just grab hold of the old tired stereotypes and conditionings, i guess.
We can find some common ground!
they aren't. Discuss it away, and nice pass to your friend.
I'm good at holding grudges.
I'm not surprised at anything tolerated here anymore. I've seen Skinner time and time again say he comes down on the "leave it alone" side of things and that it's up to the hosts to decide what gets locked in GD. But this morning I read in ATA that it's actually things like complaints about "dark humor" that the hosts should be shutting down.
Anyway.... I'm out of here for today. This place is reeking.
boston bean and I exchanged pms and I don't mind at all if she shares them.
I have nothing to hide. I found her to be a genuinely kind person who, like me, can move on with a simple, sincere apology.
Like most kind, rational adults do....and also own up when they made a mistake.
Too bad more people around here aren't like that.
So I don't know what you're so self-satisfied for.
She accepted your apology as the target of the DISGUSTING slur you used PERSONALLY toward her.
I don't think the kind of person who calls women that backwards, bigoted slur belongs on DU, and I don't consider hiding it or saying sorry to make up for the character defect that's made apparent by saying shit like that.
You're all up and down the thread laughing about how your little shit-stirring OP got the desired effect.
Well done. Be proud.
No need to thank me for your latest outrage.
Nothing subtle about it. all women naturally arch their backs and stick their ass out when they laugh with their friends at the beach!
Words heard on every porn photo shoot ever done.
but are fine with objectification and fetishising.
really now, is that how the women in your life act at the beach with their friends?
not assumed by actual women--whether they are in your life or my life or no one's life. a pose designed to entice and titillate, which has nothing to do with sports, and just barely anything to do with swimsuits.
the lesson here is that you're in denial, and mighty touchy about it, too.
don't post shit-stirring OPs if you don't want stirred shit
I am!
you said this to me:
"It's none of your goddamn business how the women in my life act at the beach."
but it's ok to have a little snark fest with you buddy -- hypocrite much?
You were saying something about "childish"??
How often do you actually get to the beach, up there?
at least until about 3pm, when the wind picked up.
I have tears over here hahahahahahaha. That has to be the lamest attempt at flipping things around that I've EVER seen here on DU. 
I can't stop laughing.
1964
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, from the adjectives being tossed around, one would think the thread was about North Korean prison camps, not a photo of 3 attractive women on a beach.
Welcome to DU!
and a lot of 'I-don't-approve-but-I can't-look-away' hangers-on:
just said, 'why the hell put this on DU? You can find this kind of shit anywhere on the 'net. It's just dumb!"
Yes, he is a sports-hating feminist man
Those girls are proof that man cannot hope to compete with the artistry of nature/god.
Thank you 
And at least I bothered to indicate I was quoting something.
Someone will be in agony over not being able to hit the alert button for the next 24 hours!1!
The Over-Enthusiastic Alerter! (cue dramatic music)
6-0 Verdicts are that one's kryptonite.
And you would think folks so familiar with all the buttons would have figured out the "hide thread" one by now.
Hissyspit is a male?????? 
Been on this board since before Moses and I always thought you were a female. LOL! Well, whattya know?
/End Thread Hijack/
I remember back in grade school when boys used to harass and tease the girls, sometimes even punch you on the shoulder, that usually meant they really liked you but didn't know how to act like a normal human. I guess their parents weren't very good at teaching them how to get along with others.
So this kind of post, of many, reminds me of those little boys. I sometimes wish the girls would just ignore them because these boys obviously have not been taught properly and poking back at them is exactly what they want and thrive on. Don't let them think you like this kind of provoking.
That'd be great...
Hogwarts is not amused.
THE HORROR!!!!!!
Gonna be a long weekend.
It's like Disneyland, the people up top are barely aware of the busy activity in the tunnels underneath.
I might sign up again one of these days, but I'm totally enjoying letting other folks handle it right now.
my husband bought it for me....YUMMY!!
For a little balance...
?w=1024
The women were on fire too!
It's good to see someone who knows what to do with a Mitt.
er...
I...
OoOooOOOhhHHHH MyYYyyyyyYYY
What was I talking about again?? I forget...
Hey, Happy V-Day to you!!!
Hope you had a nice V-Day!
I did. Hope yours was nice too.
You're darn tootin'
Doing squats hoping for a butt like that...
predictable recs - not flamebait at all.
Riff obviously woke up this morning and thought to herself "hey.. I'm bored.. I should post something to piss off all the finger-waggers... got nothin better to do.... "
No matter how predictable, I still laugh.
Rec.
Whatever!
This is why their beliefs are so bizarre and far from the mainstream, that a routine Sports Illustrated cover, that most normal people would never give a second glance to, gets 400 + replies on DU.
Also, I am hallucinating the thread they have about this thread, complete with posting the names of posters who recced this thread to try to shame them (to which I'm now going to add my name out of principle). All hallucinations! 
Same to you, and yes mine is going great! Husband was able to make it home through the bad weather late last night from another country.
and you are cheered.
what a woman
doesnt take much, does it.
Some times, you just gotta tug that fuzzy little ear, give it a strum and listen to the precise, harmonious b-sharp note it generates.
I think that most of us consider this a bit of overdue civil disobedience.
yes, they are all just freely expressing and celebrating their own individual sexuality--which is exactly the same for all three of them, and they all decided to freely express their sexuality for a great deal of money and fame in a world famous photo shoot! you go girls!
/sarcasm
yeah, that's it, i'm just jealous that no sad, lonely, unattractive man wants to masturbate while looking at my ass in that perfect "come do me doggie style" pose.
uh huh.
Nothing more disgusting than women beating down another woman--wait there is one more thing more disgusting women that claim to be feminist doing it and I use that term loosely.
I got blocked from HoF because I dared challenged them--of course they said I was being disrespectful, I wasn't. I didn't edit a post because I didn't want to be accused of saying something I didn't.
Anyone(s)that call women dogs, douchbags etc and then have the NERVE to act as though they are respectful and are above reproach..only care about THEIR agenda not the cause as a whole.
I got your back, Riff, I don't throw other women under the bus. I don't take pleasure in shaming women for choices they've made because I disagree with them. Hold your head up.
What's been done is another version of 'slut shaming'.
My head is held high; I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Like I said, I'm proud of who I am as a person.
I'm very similar to you about not throwing women under the bus...it's disgusting that it happens here from other women.
Great post, and thank you so much.
Um, except maybe that one.
the fresh-water system, and public health.... what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Do you realize that it's images like these - that are airbrushed and altered to make models even thinner - that give girls/young women body issues that lead to serious, and sometimes fatal, eating disorders?
This is what it does to young women in case you aren't aware. You can easily find articles on how the media images affect young women, please take a moment to find out. I'm sure after you see it you'll reconsider posting threads like this in a place such as DU in particular. Think about if you would want your daughter, sister, niece or friend to end up like this...
THIS ONE SHOWS WHAT SHE SEES WHEN SHE LOOKS IN MIRROR COMPARED TO WHAT SHE REALLY LOOKS LIKE:
if it wasn't for the differences among everyone, there wouldn't be a board, there'd be an echo chamber.
Sports Illustrated isn't waging a War on Women- conservative Republicans and repression-minded religious fundamentalists (ding ding ding!) are. And they are far more likely to be in the "cover up and cross your legs" camp, than in the floss bikini one. Seems to me there's nothing at all contrary to womens' rights in 3 women appearing in bikinis on a beach. There is no push, implied or otherwise, for laws restricting their freedom.
One Presidential candidate in 2012 actively argued on the stump against sexy pictures of naked people. His name was Rick Santorum.
Now, "sexual ogling". Would you feel the same way if it was women looking at attractive men? How about men looking at men? Women looking at women? A lot of people here - men and women - are NOT offended by the picture, or the alleged 'sexual ogling'. By the way, the OP was posted by a woman.
It's also worth noting that the only vulgar comments I've seen regarding the OP have come from people complaining about it.
Other times, when people complain about things that they find offensive, they're accused of "whining" or "trying to silence".
As for what some people think does or doesn't constitute "mature and respectful behavior"... I also think- how shall I phrase this- that sometimes DU exhibits certain, shall we say, generational demographic peculiarities pertaining to the internet, the culture, trends and media. Polls here have borne this out, to a large extent.
seems to cause, I would say leaving everything except the publishing decision aside, one, it's a yearly tradition they've been doing for a while, and two, the magazine industry in general is suffering bigtime.
In terms of purely marketing decisions, it's probably a better move than Tina Brown shifting the focus of a major American News Weekly to approximately 70% fashion stories and British Royal Family gossip.
Response to RiffRandell (Original post)
Apparently I imagined my college years.
I'm having trouble turning away from my screen now.
On a more serious note, SI might as well rename itself "Playboy Jr." if they're going to let the girls strip damn near naked for a cover photo. The cover sort of takes away from what the magazine is supposed to be about (sports).
Needs to be fired 
I'd actually prefer a cover of just her. Fr some reason groups of women is just too overwhelming.
As far as the politics goes, true feminism empowers women to do whatever they want to do. From what I've read these women seem pretty proud of thee modeling careers.
I just don't understand when being prude and immature on sexuality became progressive.
Oh, fuck, I said "ape" 
YOU took my ice cream bar!
