Hey guys, guess what...The new Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is out. Alright! Whoo-hoo! Have you seen the spread on page 32?
Hmmmm...Okay, the truth is the above statement is nothing like me at all. In fact, I find the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition to be perhaps one of the most influential, but derogatory pieces of "professional" journalism to even hit the shelves of society's local bookstores or grocery marts.
It was just last night when I saw the cover of the new 2008 edition in my local WinCo. While I can honestly say I never intended to find or observe this recent publication, such a cover is hard to miss on the very front row of the sports and exercise magazine section.
Instead of trying to provide a "cleaner" description of how the front page was composed, I will just state that such a cover is probably the most "bold" I have ever witnessed for this “athletic” magazine. This year's title: "Barely Bikinis".
However, what struck me with even more astonishment than the pornographic cover pose was the truly heart wrenching subtitle: "Player's Wives Show It Off". Now, while everyone has their own opinion, I have very high values and standards for the concept and commitment of marriage. Yet, when I see such a popular and influential icon of American journalism publicly promoting the values of graphic lust and adultery of another's spouse, I believe it is time we all take a step back and reflect on how such content came so easily to public print.
No matter your view on the concept of publishing media solely for the profit of visual "eye candy", I hope one can at least consider the following question. Given how far society has accepted the ideals and development of more questionable media material, should it still be considered respectable journalism to sexually promote another's greatest love and treasure, primarily their spouse, just for the sake and lustful pleasure of the rest of the human population?
Now, I am fully aware that all models have the right and freedom to pose however they wish, and for magazines to print such content. In fact, I am completely for the concept of free speech in these types of situations. However, it is the lack of public opposition to such “publicly” available racy and questionable media that cause me concern, and I admit, some anger.
Sexuality, lust, and personal desire have always played a part in the history of human culture. From Adam and Eve, to Romeo and Juliet, to the current SI swimsuit edition, all of these outlets have presented these ideas in a different fashion. But it is today's complete lack of liability, reflection, and frankly, any truly strong opposition in the public sector which is becoming such a disturbingly contradictory conundrum. It is our personal interests which determine what the media decides to print.
Currently, women are demanding more respect, and men don't want to be known as "horn dogs". We want America's children to grow up with a set of values and standards by which they can represent a strong moral front for the future of American and global society. But when anyone can walk through a local grocery mart and observe the influential media content currently being displayed, I believe it calls to seriously question society's current platform in the development of our societal intellect, human dignity, and frankly, the accepted concept of the “American” dream.
***side note*** Yahoo buzz reported that twenty four hours after SI 2008 swimsuit magazine hit the shelves internet searches for the publication swelled more than 6000%. This year’s current edition of the SI swimsuit magazine is estimated to be viewed by 250 million people online.
There is one thing I have to say about this to you. I think that what you read or don't read is all about choice. Why should we tell people what they should or shouldn't read? I think it is much more important that we instill into our children and the younger generations the right values and allow them to make decisions on their own. There is a lot more we can learn from making a poor decision than being programmed like robots to make the right decisions.
Do I think that this years issue is a little overboard? Yes, it is a mainstream soft-core porn to be quite honest, but America has made a culturally shift where this is more culturally acceptable. Is this a bad thing? It shows the American public is much more willing to discuss and learn about sex which is something that is really important today in an age where sexually transmitted diseases run wild.
Is a swimsuit issue the way to educate people? I personally don't think so but I really don't mind its publication. I think people have choices and whether or not they want to read or look at a magazine is completely up to them. Buying a product is entirely voluntary and I don't think anything should stand in the way of an American consumer trying to buy things other than maybe sales tax.
Alright, I see where you are coming from. Everyone has a right to choose what they want to read and look at. I agree with this concept completely. But when one starts putting "soft-core porn", which is still porn either way you look at it, in plain view for everyone to see, whether they want to or not, then there is a problem. For example, they must put Playboy in a wrapped sack so everyone, especially small children, do not have to look at the content on the public shelves. Why can't this apply to risque swimsuit publications?
(*note* By plain view I mean, for example, the magazine stand that also holds the science, children, and game magazines for little children and those looking for some more quality material)
Next, you said, "There is a lot more we can learn from making a poor decision than being programmed like robots to make the right decisions." It is true one can learn more from mistakes than from always being right. But if one stabs himself in the eye while running with scissors that does not necessarily mean the eye can be easily replaced (if ever) when the emergency is over. By instilling the thought processes of crude and disrespectful habits in younger generations, the effects can last for many years to come. These can have long lasting effects on other people's relationships too, especially women, if men begin by believing females are only pieces of sexual meat by which they can gain visual and physical pleasure. Whether or not a magazine is only freely accessed by a willing few, ultimately the rest of the population can be adversely affected.
I also agree with your statement that America has become more culturally accepted to this kind of material. But this does not mean America is more open to discussing the issue. This especially applies to the issue of sexual transmitted diseases. I am not sure if I am the only one that has noticed, but instead of encouraging abstinence and education in younger children and teenagers, public institutions now just make medication and "protectives", such as condoms, available to anyone to wants them. Is this the public/cultural response to "safer sex"? I am sorry, but none of those procedures ever actually educate anyone on anything. This is only an "easy" way out when no one is willing to take the time to actually explain the real issues to those that need the information. I wonder why this happens? Maybe it is because children don't care anymore because their older role models don't care either. Apparently modern role models also think it is okay to publish and observe anything they so desire...even other people's wives.
I understand where you are coming from, but freedom of expression does not always mean the best for the development of a strong societal structure. There comes a time when the line has been crossed and something must change before the base of the structures weakens to a point of self-destruction.
I understand where your statement about abstinence comes from, but int he real world, abstinence education is not something that works. I go to a high school that is funded to teach abstinence only sex education and they refuse to teach it this way. The reason is because the sexual norm today is to not wait till marriage. It is very important that people know about things like condoms if they are going to be having sex, because frankly, expecting teenagers to care for babies is not really an option for American society. Or at least not a good option.
To take this further I would like to tell you a story that my Rabbi told us about when he was the president of Planned Parent Hood. I live in a suburb of Atlanta. At the time of the event, the city of Atlanta had one really poor performing high school that my Rabbi was familiar with. The thing that made things bad for this high school was the pregnancy rate which was reaching close to 60%. The principal of the school called my Rabbi after having spent 3 years having the school teach abstinence only to see pregnancy rates increase to see what he could do. My rabbi proceeded to call a number of condom manufacturers to inquire about free condoms that may be available for the school. He was able to get 4 big barrels full that the companies were willing to refill. With in 1 year, pregnancy rate decreased to below 10%. The school board complained that this action was promoting sexual activity and forced the removal of the barrels and with in 2 months, pregnancy rates increased to the former level.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
Karl Marx
Alright, I realize that a lot of people have contradicting views on sex education. That's fine. Everyone has a right to their own interpretation to what is the best option for the the current sex ed situation in America. But this is not the main point/issue of this blog.
The main point I was trying to make was such that "where are we going in society when magazines popularly publish lustful images of another's wife and/or strongly promote highly mature sexual content in the middle of places like a community supermarket without any sort of recoil from the majority of society?" What are the limits to which public sexual displays are kept to a minimum?
I would think that at least those fighting for the respect of human dignity, especially for women, would at least support to have some reflection in part of my above question.
*note* I still believe in the right to free speech and press, but publications like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition should, I believe, still be held to the same standards of magazines like Playboy. This being that if they are going to sell on public shelves the images should be in a bag and only people ages 18 or older can purchase the magazines. Porn is porn, whether it is "soft" or not. If you need this sort of pleasure don't expect to get it next to my favorite publications such as Runner's World, National Geographic, Time, etc which have more valuable content for the improvement of my mind and body.
Hi Ross,
Though I agree with what you have stated concerning the 2008 S.I. Edition, it is never about respectable journalism. Maybe the all sports edition, but when the S.I. comes out, it's a whole different animal.
As far as suggesting that the magazine be covered, that's a little too much for me. The same can be said about magazines concerning guns, boxing, mixed martial arts, etc, etc.
I have been a fan of S.I. in the past. Personally I found this issue to be boring, especially when they continue to use the same models 3 and 4 times. Give us something new.
As far as it being soft porn. That is somewhat debatable. At least where I'm concern. When the outfits start becoming sheer or the poses are overly sexual, then I will have an issue.
Rainey