I am not a sports fan at all, but lately I’ve been spending time with one, and so I’m exposed to a lot more of sports media, and the attitudes demonstrated towards manhood and womanhood. In the last two weeks I’ve both watched portions of the Superbowl (OK, actually I fast-forwarded through the actual game and commentary, and watched the commercials, and The Who’s performance), and looked carefully at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
The first thing that struck me was that a number of the commercials I saw were sending the message that you have to fend against women’s attempts to “feminize” you in order to be a man, and that the way to keep some sense of manhood is to buy something “manly.” This ad for the Dodge Charger was particularly blatant in that regard. Even the etrade ad with the babies was sending a similar message that all women (or in this case baby girls) want is to limit men’s (or baby boys’) freedom and even adds in some competition between females for good measure. Lying is funny!
The SI issue was interesting. The model on the cover, Brooklyn Decker, is wearing the bottom of her yellow bikini, but the top is just draped over her shoulder. Her breasts are covered, but with so many of the models inside similarly topless, or on several pages totally naked but with a bathing suit painted on, it certainly doesn’t seem all that different from what you’d find in a magazine like Playboy. What it has to do with sports I really can’t say, although I’m told that Decker and others are dating or married to famous athletes, and there are a few winter Olympians featured in swimsuits. This article from 2005 (and reprinted on Slate last week), describes the history and some of the controversies.
What I see is that gorgeous, young, slim women with large breasts (sometimes obviously fake, other times not) and seemingly perfect skin–clearly the models with paint on them are airbrushed to death since you can’t see anything, and there’s a very poorly art directed foldout poster with a cover from from Reebok suggesting that one “unzip” before looking at it, with all the models who clearly were not anywhere near each other when each was photographed, seemingly in the same space and sometimes leaning on each other–that is being sent to homes where there are young boy subscribers as well as adult men, and girls and women that would otherwise not allow pornographic magazines in their home. The friend who loaned me the magazine, who has subscribed since he was about 7, (he’s 49 now) was amazed when the first one arrived in his home. His parents had even paid for the subscription!
On the other hand, although I couldn’t easily find the “lineup” to insert it here, there are dozens of photos on the SI website that I can look at, for free, without having to pay or to sign in or anything and so can all the 7 year old boys out there. It’s easier to see such images than to avoid them. A lot of today’s media seems to be designed for men to masturbate to. Is it giving very young boys an idea of the “perfect woman” that us mere, non-airbrushed real women cannot measure up to? Or is it just fun and we should be good sports? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Curtis, Brian. “The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue: An intellectual history”. Slate.com. February 9, 2010 (reprint from 2005). http://www.slate.com/id/2244177/
Cover of Sports Illustrated February 12, 2010, taken by Walter Iooss Jr.
Girls Who (Don't) Wear Glasses 