I mean, really, who wears a fur lined, hooded parka with bikini bottoms?
Sports Illustrated's 2013 Swimsuit Edition |
I am not one to bash this annual tradition of Sports Illustrated's. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I had the body to fit into any one of the featured bathing suits. I enjoyed perusing the pages for potential beach and poolside attire and quite possibly, my next exotic travel destination.
The annual Swimsuit Edition was a welcomed distraction from the technical jargon, sports commentary, and uniformed men who usually grace the pages of the magazine. But in years past, SI has veered so far off the path of actually featuring bathing suits. Now, they are featuring women's bodies as is evidenced by the subtitle, "Kate Upton Goes Polar Bare".
While the scenery from Antarctica is nothing short of spectacular, the pictures are anything but realistic. Who wears a bikini in Antarctica? Who lounges seductively on an iceberg while clad solely in a skimpy white bathing suit and a pair of furry boots? I suppose I should be satisfied that she's wearing a bathing suit. She could have her lady parts covered with strategically placed snow.
Sports Illustrated, if you are listening, here are some things to consider for next year's publication.
1) Necklaces and scarves do not constitute bikini tops....ever.
2) Body paint? Really? How is that anything close to a bathing suit? I want to see actual bathing suits, You know, the ones that I can wear to the beach or pool.
3) Antarctica? I know. I can't stop harping on this one. This is hardly a place where women are running around without wearing down parkas much less bathing suits.
A prude I am not. I've been to St. Barth's. I've sunbathed topless.
However, a Swimsuit Edition should be just that. It should feature bathing suits. Not necklaces. Not scarves. And certainly not body paint.
No comments
Post a Comment