bapedi

I think some of this about inherent contradictions that have always plagued the swimsuit issue (and the display of beautiful women in general). Is it solely about appealing to the male gaze? Or is there another dimension to it? In this specific, this is "Sports Illustrated" and not "Maxim" so there has always been a weird element of dissonance here. Maybe that dissonance has always been a lame excuse from men who wanted to say "no, of course this isn't a soft-core porn magazine" but the dissonance does exist. Given the dissonance, the magazine clearly wants to take a stance that the swimsuit issue is about *more* than just the male gaze--it is trying to be (at least halfheartedly) a celebration of female beauty and dynamism for its own sake. Once you make the distinction of "this isn't meant to cater to the widest range of male preferences possible" you get more variety naturally, which could include heavier women or transwomen. I think it is positive to have celebrations of female beauty in society so I am all for us continuing these in new, more comfortable formats. I think people have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the notion that female beauty only exists for a narrow range of male tastes. More inclusive notions of female beauty could bring pros and cons to any given taste. You might see *more* of certain models who you think are particularly beautiful. For example, I remember at one time Sports Illustrated had fewer photos of Marisa Miller because she did not lose all the weight they wanted of her. I think she was gorgeous at the time and this was a total loss for everyone. I think you will still be able to gets photos of gorgeous women in beautiful settings by buying SI--maybe you just find the whole thing much less necessary, like most people? I'm guessing I am pretty similar to most others in that I have always had specific tastes. For instance, looking back at Sports Illustrated Swim from 2001 (on Bellazon) you will find a wide variety of women. I find a few of these women incredibly compelling and others much less so. I find it highly unlikely any person looks at every picture in a given issue equally--I know many models I would ignore completely. Last year's issue had photos of Josephine Skriver, who I think the vast majority of males find to be one of the most gorgeous women in existence, so I don't think we're losing a lot by being more inclusive. If you think it is a poor value prospect to buy a magazine to get a mixed bag of photos that aren't all to your taste, you are probably in agreement with most of the internet. I would argue it has always been that way, but now we have other options. I don't think you should pin your frustrations on the inclusion of heavier women or trans women, because these women deserve representation in society and media, and going forward most people will not find it comfortable to systematically exclude them from anything that isn't fully pornographic. That's just my two cents, though--hope my perspective helps you think about this issue.

Bing images seems to vaguely think this is Mayara Rubik, but I'm pretty sure not. Can anyone give any help?