2014 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Revealed.

[Scootaloo]

546. Thing is, it's not about the models

Sports Illustrated does not release a "modeling edition" that takes a look into the world of modeling. There are no interviews of models, agents, or photographers, no play-by-plays of shoots (and thank goodness, ever been to a model shoot? You need the patience of Job for that line of work.) Basically the magazine abandons all its usual sort of content for an issue, to bring you pictures of mostly-naked women. And as i've pointed out, they're all very passive, unengaged pictures at that.

The problem isn't the women pictured in the magazine - despite your great efforts to lodge words in peoples' mouths to that effect. it's the message the magazine itself delivers. There's no "Heidi Klum; the trials and tribulations of a Model, Actress, and Mother!" in the swimsuit issue. There's just "here's Heidi Klum's nearly-bare tits, eat up!"

Instead of being presented as the person she is, she and the other models are presented as objects, non-people, products to be consumed. You the reader (well, picture-looker) are invited, encouraged to see them as such. They are portrayed as things to do stuff to with your dick, not as human beings. This is emphasized by the airbrushing and editing of their bodies - granted not to the great degree as found in the fashion industry, but still pretty noticeable (this year's cover looks like it came from somethingawful.com in fact). In this way even their very bodies are made malleable, interchangeable, all to give you the consumer a vicarious thrill.

The issue at hand is that the magazine actively promotes a certain outlook with regards to women - that they are objects, non-person entities to which sex is done.