his article discusses the SI Swimsuit Issue for 2002.  It was prompted by a review of blogs, one of which had a short article by Christopher Caldwell, an arch-conservative with odd ideas about female body size.

This article, by Christopher Caldwell, about the SI swimsuit issue (the good parts of which you can see right here) is relatively bizarre, in my reading.  It's too dumb an article about far too inconsequential a topic to do some sort of point by point analysis and rebuttal of, at least while I'm still sane. But I'll throw in a quote:

At issue is the inhuman skinniness of Sports Illustrated's models, and in this there seems to be a two-year cycle to the pornography it peddles. (We're adults here; we can call it by its name.) In one year, columnists will rage at the magazine, complaining that the image of women it presents is unreal and anorexia-provoking.

Looking at some of the pictures in the issue, I don't notice any difference from every other swimsuit pic I've seen.  Runway (super) models are far thinner, usually pretty bony.  The SI ones have to look good in a swimsuit, which means they are usually a bit heavier, so they'll have hips, hourglass shape, at least C cups, etc. I don't own any SI issues, and don't recall ever looking at one for longer than it took to stand in the check out line at the super market, so I'll admit I'm not much of an expert on how heavy or thin the women are from one year to the next. It was my impression that they had many of the same models in them year after year for most of the 90's, so perhaps the supporting case of lesser know models fluctuated up and down in weight from year to year, if we are to believe Caldwell's thesis.

I would also strongly dispute the pornography description.  Maybe he's got a lot better imagination than I do, but swimsuit pictures are very far from arousing my prurient interests, or offending my community standards, to use the most common US Supreme Court definition of what porn is.  And in any event, the SI issue isn't anywhere near good enough to be porn. I don't even consider Playboy porn, with it's endless parade of air brushed plastic blondes, showing nearly-scar-free inflatable titties with an occasional hint of pubic hair (Photoshop-darkened to obscure any potential labia exposure).  Certainly SI is meant to be eye candy, I mean the men aren't looking through it for fashion tips, or suits to get their wife, but the occasional semi-visible nipple or camel toe is not even in the same ballpark with porno, IMHO.  Not that I would care if SI were porn, I have nothing against it, though obviously Caldwell does, from his tone.

My initial point was going to be the weight issue though.  Is he trying to appease his butterball wife or daughter or something?  Men like thin women.  Women like thin men.  Gays like thin partners. The natural biology of humans is to seek out strong, healthy, attractive partners, and if someone is in good shape and active, they'll be thin.  I'm sure some people prefer fat lovers.  I've never met anyone who did though.

People talk about fat jokes being cruel, and how that's one of the last politically incorrect types of humor that is socially acceptable.  Well yeah, but fat is an option and a choice.  Gender, race, ethnicity, etc are not.  Fat is unhealthy, unattractive, and unwanted.  The only people who stop trying to diet and lose their blubber are those who are too weak to stop eating chocolate and fatty meats and such, too lazy to exercise, and having given up on being attractive or sexually desirable.  And they are the people trying to change the debate to "fat acceptance".

I certainly don't go around insulting morbidly obese people, but I try not to look at them since it's sort of disgusting and pitiable, and when some dope labels the look of the generally healthy, fit, diet-prone women in the SI issue as "inhuman skinniness" it just shows his own unknown *coughfatwifecough* agenda.  If you want to complain about Kate Moss and her toothpick arms, you might have a point, but she's not in the SI issue.

The only issue I'd have with the SI issue (based on looking through maybe 1/3 of the shots on their website) is that there aren't any butt shots.  I saw one, and it's just barely visible cheeks.  What's a man (like myself) who most enjoys a woman with a great ass and legs, to do?  Every shot has face and breasts, but never a back, or butt.  There also seem to be an awful lot of crotch shots in this issue, something that I hadn't noticed in past years.  I guess guys find those sexy, and I do if you can see something, (she's not wearing a swimsuit, for example) but these are mostly thick fabric bikinis, you can't see any suspicious bulges, and the poses are mostly so artificially gynecological it just makes them seem phony.  Which they of course are, but we like our artifice presented more subtly, please.

Anyway, I'm glad for that whiny pinhead's article, since I wouldn't even have known the issue was out, or seen any of the pics.

I really do have trouble imagining any man over the age of 14 becoming sexually aroused from a bikini picture, especially the non-sexy way they are done in SI.  I mean a tiny wet, see-through white thong bikini that's just falling off the woman, I can see as sexy.  But these weird SI shots with soccer players and paint-flaking dinghies and standing in a meadow in some granny bikini... ugh.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.