New Sports Illustrated Swim Suit issue is out

[okcBob]

 

[donner]

I don't know, seems like a public attempt to make obesity glamorous in a national media pub is fair game for criticism.

It doesn't really matter if you are obese and you 'feel' healthy or unhealthy. You are unhealthy.

or a public attempt to show what a part of our population looks like... or an attempt to show something different than it has in the past... or an attempt to sell magazines.

I think there are four separate covers this year. And i know of at least one para athlete who modeled inside. It's not just about this one lady and where she falls on the obesity scale. And, it's not like obese people can't feel glamorous, either.

So, is it glorifying something or showcasing the varied body types of our society?

Years ago ESPN Magazine did a yearly 'body issue' that showcased many aspects of the physical. Not only cut athletes in different stages of dress, but other things. One of the most interesting was showing a silhouette of of the body types for different sports. Tall wide football players, sleek narrow runners, heavyset shot throwers, tiny cut gymnasts.

But, if we are really worried about unhealthy people being shown and made to look glamorous, should we start with fashion? Athletes? Politicians? I'm guessing it wouldn't be too hard to find examples of unhealthy people in all those categories.

 

[donner]

I can agree with what you are saying, and yes I believe in many cases how much one weighs is choice, however may be more difficult for some than others. I think the debate is more about are they trying to normalize women who may be "overweight" (no polite way to say it), have norms of men seeking women or what they find attractive changed, or is this issue simply virtue signaling? I do not believe the original post was making fun of her. One has to ask, is SI truly trying to sell magazines or do they have an agenda?

As for the latter part why did they choose this model, the issue has traditionally been about what type of women men want to see, not the model's choice if she feels good about herself.

as i said in another response, this is just one of several covers. And inside the magazine features women of varied ages, sizes and (for at least one person) without all limbs. Is it virtue signaling to show a diverse (varied) group of body types or simply a reflection of the readership at large? What is more relatable, this lady being shown to look glamorous or a tiny, airbrushed supermodel?

While it might have 'traditionally' been one thing, it doesn't mean it has to be that every year. One year they literally painted on all the swimsuits if i remember right. Does not doing that here break some tradition that must be respected? Or is it simply trying to bring variation to a theme done yearly?

 

[HillsideDesolate]

as i said in another response, this is just one of several covers. And inside the magazine features women of varied ages, sizes and (for at least one person) without all limbs. Is it virtue signaling to show a diverse (varied) group of body types or simply a reflection of the readership at large? What is more relatable, this lady being shown to look glamorous or a tiny, airbrushed supermodel?

While it might have 'traditionally' been one thing, it doesn't mean it has to be that every year. One year they literally painted on all the swimsuits if i remember right. Does not doing that here break some tradition that must be respected? Or is it simply trying to bring variation to a theme done yearly?

Or maybe it is a mass market magazine owned by international communications corporation that does not give AF about people

 

[donner]

Or maybe it is a mass market magazine owned by international communications corporation that does not give AF about people

Or someone said 'maybe we branch out and see if we can't attract more readers' or 'we get criticized for unhealthy anorexic women, let's try something different'

multiple things can often be true a the same time.

But saying it sends the wrong message to show large, even obese women on the cover, is pretty meh.

 

[TedKennedy]

One year they literally painted on all the swimsuits if i remember right. Does not doing that here break some tradition that must be respected? Or is it simply trying to bring variation to a theme done yearly?

They should have done that this year. What better way to illustrate the benefits of healthy at any size?

One of the ways our society has slipped is the inability to state the truth. I don’t care if 90% of Americans are lardasses, it’s not something to celebrate.

Make a lot more sense to celebrate some who have worked hard to achieve an athletic body, or accomplished some physical goal in a sports magazine.

 

[trekrok]

Is it virtue signaling to show a diverse (varied) group of body types or simply a reflection of the readership at large?

Yes, 100% virtue signaling.

 

[sherrick13]

Banned

 

[trekrok]

And i know of at least one para athlete who modeled inside.

I'm good with that if that's what they want to show. There is some inspiration there - look what they've accomplished sort of thing.

Same story with the fat girl? Look what she accomplished? Really?

 

[swampratt]

Makeup makes her prettier like many women.
Not my cup of tea though.
Oh here is a makeup fix picture for someone that I rate on the same number scale for pretty as this swimsuit cover girl.