Quote by sprite
So... us thin gals are faux women?
'Gals' maybe? ;)
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
'Gals' maybe? ;)
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue features its first-ever plus-size model
last reply
62 replies
7.5k views
0 watchers
0 likes
'Gals' maybe? ;)
The Linebacker
The reality is that when I pay for my Sports Illustrated subscription I'm paying to read about sports. I get an issue every week. But I do look forward to and enjoy the annual Swimsuit Edition. That edition is also Sports Illustrated's biggest off the rack seller. If they changed their format from using super fit bikini models their sales would drop. I'd be much less interested in getting the Swimsuit Edition and in fact might consider it a waste and would rather just have another regular sports edition.
If we're dishing out money we want to see the best of the best, the most gorgeous and the most fit. We can see attractive overweight women at the beach for free any day we go there. They are everywhere, but super fit super models? They aren't so readily available.
This is not mean, its just the truth and reality.
Would women pay to go see all male dance revues, like the movie 'Magic Mike', if they are featuring beer gutted, hairy, bald headed dudes that have a cute face? I seriously doubt it.
Just like the pictures we post on each other's walls here on Lush. We pretty much only post pictures of super fit gorgeous sexy people, scantily clad or nothing at all, of course.
If we're dishing out money we want to see the best of the best, the most gorgeous and the most fit. We can see attractive overweight women at the beach for free any day we go there. They are everywhere, but super fit super models? They aren't so readily available.
This is not mean, its just the truth and reality.
Would women pay to go see all male dance revues, like the movie 'Magic Mike', if they are featuring beer gutted, hairy, bald headed dudes that have a cute face? I seriously doubt it.
Just like the pictures we post on each other's walls here on Lush. We pretty much only post pictures of super fit gorgeous sexy people, scantily clad or nothing at all, of course.
Cryptic Vigilante
Quote by sprite
So... us thin gals are faux women?
Nope, you're surreal.
At least this is what the medical community tells us:
Cryptic Vigilante
Quote by Buz
The reality is that when I pay for my Sports Illustrated subscription I'm paying to read about sports. I get an issue every week. But I do look forward to and enjoy the annual Swimsuit Edition. That edition is also Sports Illustrated's biggest off the rack seller. If they changed their format from using super fit bikini models their sales would drop. I'd be much less interested in getting the Swimsuit Edition and in fact might consider it a waste and would rather just have another regular sports edition.
If we're dishing out money we want to see the best of the best, the most gorgeous and the most fit. We can see attractive overweight women at the beach for free any day we go there. They are everywhere, but super fit super models? They aren't so readily available.
This is not mean, its just the truth and reality.
Would women pay to go see all male dance revues, like the movie 'Magic Mike', if they are featuring beer gutted, hairy, bald headed dudes that have a cute face? I seriously doubt it.
Just like the pictures we post on each other's walls here on Lush. We pretty much only post pictures of super fit gorgeous sexy people, scantily clad or nothing at all, of course.
This exactly. But can the majority of women accept the fact that they don't stand out as much as fitness models (or slim women in general for that matter)?
Because 'body acceptance' not only means being satisfied with your own body, it also means accepting where it stands in terms of attractiveness for the opposite sex.
Cryptic Vigilante
By the way, the 5'9"/170 lbs mentioned in Ashley Graham bio really makes me suspicious. I'm 5'9" myself and once weighted around 170 lbs so it's easy for me to compare, and I'd be extremely surprised if she weighted 170 lbs in the majority of her shoots.
Her weight fluctuated a lot in fact. In the first two pictures, she's actually relatively lean (and not that different from a few girls I've slept with myself), but in the last two she's definitely a lot heavier. My guess is around 170 lbs in her leaner pictures, and 200+ lbs in most of her other ones (which is considered obese, by the way):
Her weight fluctuated a lot in fact. In the first two pictures, she's actually relatively lean (and not that different from a few girls I've slept with myself), but in the last two she's definitely a lot heavier. My guess is around 170 lbs in her leaner pictures, and 200+ lbs in most of her other ones (which is considered obese, by the way):
The Linebacker
There are guys who really go for larger women. That's what floats their boat, gets them excited. I've known guys that wanted their women so skinny they looked horribly anorexic. Everyone has something they prefer.
In the case of Sports Illustrated, they are selling a product and going for mass appeal. If they want to toss in a token to try and appeal to more of a fetish group, then that's their marketing decision. Would it screw up their formula that works? Maybe, maybe not.
In the case of Sports Illustrated, they are selling a product and going for mass appeal. If they want to toss in a token to try and appeal to more of a fetish group, then that's their marketing decision. Would it screw up their formula that works? Maybe, maybe not.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by sprite
I want to see hot guys, personally. Where are the hot guys in swimsuits?
ALWAYS trying to satisfy Her Spriteness desires... Here are a couple guys that are "hot" in the sun!!
Active Ink Slinger
THE SWIMSUIT ISSUE FEATURED ONE WOMAN THAT I PERSONALLY DON'T FIND ATTRACTIVE AND I'M DISTURBED AND GOING TO TRY AND PROVE TO EVERYONE HOW UNWORTHY SHE IS!- ginormous crybabies
Cryptic Vigilante
I wonder if women here would have tried to prove how unworthy this model is if she appeared in a Sports Illustrated advertisement, or would have simply mentioned if they find her attractive or not:
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Health, fitness and beauty are three separate things. Sure there is overlap. Sure they're related. But they're not the same.
Health is something you can objectively measure to a certain degree.
Fitness always relates to a context. Overweight or even slightly obese people are probably more fit to survive when there's little to no food.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Health is something you can objectively measure to a certain degree.
Fitness always relates to a context. Overweight or even slightly obese people are probably more fit to survive when there's little to no food.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
Chuckanator
Let's face the truth folks. Fat is norm but skinny sells.
We live in a generally sedentary society where people drive ten miles to walk on a treadmill instead of just going for a walk. The average diet is calorie rich and nutrient poor. It makes sense that plus size would become that standard but it won't. Fitness represents more than just a body type. It represents discipline, self control, and hard work. The real truth is that it is available to everyone at any age. You won't diet yourself into fitness. It is more about moving your feet than moving your fork.
I personally find people attractive by more than their body shape. Confidence, poise, and positive attitude go a long way. The model looks ok and fits the politically correct view point, but I don't think it will sell magazines the way Hidie Klum does.
We live in a generally sedentary society where people drive ten miles to walk on a treadmill instead of just going for a walk. The average diet is calorie rich and nutrient poor. It makes sense that plus size would become that standard but it won't. Fitness represents more than just a body type. It represents discipline, self control, and hard work. The real truth is that it is available to everyone at any age. You won't diet yourself into fitness. It is more about moving your feet than moving your fork.
I personally find people attractive by more than their body shape. Confidence, poise, and positive attitude go a long way. The model looks ok and fits the politically correct view point, but I don't think it will sell magazines the way Hidie Klum does.
I've just published chapter seven of Undercovers Detective. I would love your feedback on this story. I'm planning on ten chapters at least. If you haven't read one yet, I've included links. I hope you like them.
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/undercovers-detective-chapter-7.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/seduction/undercovers-detective-chapter-6.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective-chapter-5.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/first-time/underdovers-detective-chapter-4.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/seduction/undercovers-detective-chapter-3.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective-chapter-two.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/undercovers-detective-chapter-7.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/seduction/undercovers-detective-chapter-6.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective-chapter-5.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/first-time/underdovers-detective-chapter-4.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/seduction/undercovers-detective-chapter-3.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective-chapter-two.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/undercovers-detective.aspx
Active Ink Slinger
This is an interesting topic and I I've enjoyed reading the many points of view. It's dinner time so I think I'll have a cheese burger and fries and wash it down with a beer while I keep pondering. I feel a little inspired so maybe I'll watch a workout video while I eat.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by SereneProdigy
I wonder if women here would have tried to prove how unworthy this model is if she appeared in a Sports Illustrated advertisement, or would have simply mentioned if they find her attractive or not:
Oh ffs why would we?? I'm not really interested in hypercritically picking apart people's bodies.
Some people can find a range of body types attractive. That's all.
The Linebacker
Quote by SereneProdigy
I wonder if women here would have tried to prove how unworthy this model is if she appeared in a Sports Illustrated advertisement, or would have simply mentioned if they find her attractive or not:
Knowing that the camera adds just a few pounds. I'd bet this one looks anorexic in real life. Too skinny.
Cryptic Vigilante
Quote by jollylolly
Oh ffs why would we?? I'm not really interested in hypercritically picking apart people's bodies.
Some people can find a range of body types attractive. That's all.
Maybe you wouldn't yourself, but I've witnessed plenty of thin-bashing in threads that didn't concern thin people in any way (and it was a whole lot more vindictive/mindless than what I presented in this thread myself).
You can find my posts exhaustive and hypercritical, but they were still on point and within the forum rules as far as I'm concerned; the OP didn't simply ask "So, do you find Ashley Graham attractive?" in her opening post, and I've seen dozens and dozens of people engaging in 'serious discussions' in The Pub, The Lounge, Art & Entertainement, Health & Fitness, Crowd Sourcing and the LGBT section.
If you don't enjoy reading my posts, what can I say... look elsewhere?
Cryptic Vigilante
Quote by Buz
Knowing that the camera adds just a few pounds. I'd bet this one looks anorexic in real life. Too skinny.
Actually 'anorexic' has a lot more to do with a specific psychological state than a person's appearance. I knew a few anorexic girls that had short periods of amelioration where they looked very healthy (or even fat), and yet they were still vulnerable to this condition and still medically diagnosed. Conversely, I knew a few girls that didn't look all that different from this model (for whatever physiological/environmental reasons), and who didn't really obsess over their body image.
But I agree, this model is too skinny to my liking (I'd still choose her over Ashley Graham any day though). And by the way, although this level of leanness isn't optimal either, it's actually a lot healthier than being overweight or obese. The biggest concern that underweight people face is a lack of nutrients in their diets (and a few consequential conditions such as anemia and osteoporosis), all of which can be resolved fairly easily with adequate supplements. I'd prefer this to all the numerous permanent conditions that affect overweight people myself.
And also, anorexia has a prevalence of 0.1% in the United States, whereas 70% of people are either overweight or obese: that's a ratio of 700. You decide what's the main culprit here. And for everyone's info:
Quote by [url=http://eatingdisorder.org/eating-disorder-information/facts-and-myths/
EatingDisorder.org[/url]]Myth: Eating Disorders are caused by Photoshopped images in the media
Fact: Many people are exposed to the media and altered images on a daily basis but only a small percentage of them actually develop eating disorders. Eating Disorders are serious illnesses that have biological, genetic and psychological underpinnings. Sociocultural messages about weight and beauty (including photoshopped images) can certainly impact a person’s body image and stimulate pressures to look a certain way, but they cannot cause an eating disorder.
Cryptic Vigilante
Just to corroborate my previous post:
Quote by [url=http://eatingdisorder.org/eating-disorder-information/facts-and-myths/
EatingDisorder.org[/url]]Myth: You can tell if someone has an eating disorder simply by looking at them
Fact: Individuals with eating disorders come in all shapes and sizes. Many times, the media and other public discussions about eating disorders focus solely on individuals with a diagnosis of anorexia who are severely emaciated. In reality, many individuals with anorexia may not ever appear so drastically underweight. Furthermore, many individuals with severe disorders including bulimia, binge eating, and EDNOS can be underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese and often fluctuate in weight. Even athletes who appear to be incredibly fit might be struggling with an eating disorder. The bottom line is that you cannot define someone’s health by how much they weigh and you cannot determine whether they have an eating disorder just by looking at them.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by SereneProdigy
Maybe you wouldn't yourself, but I've witnessed plenty of thin-bashing in threads that didn't concern thin people in any way (and it was a whole lot more vindictive/mindless than what I presented in this thread myself).
You can find my posts exhaustive and hypercritical, but they were still on point and within the forum rules as far as I'm concerned; the OP didn't simply ask "So, do you find Ashley Graham attractive?" in her opening post, and I've seen dozens and dozens of people engaging in 'serious discussions' in The Pub, The Lounge, Art & Entertainement, Health & Fitness, Crowd Sourcing and the LGBT section.
If you don't enjoy reading my posts, what can I say... look elsewhere?
Whether someone has an eating disorder or a natural propensity to extreme thinness, shaming them for it is just wrong IMHO.
As to reading your posts, we'll see. I'll take it on a case by case basis
Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado
Quote by SereneProdigy
I wonder if women here would have tried to prove how unworthy this model is if she appeared in a Sports Illustrated advertisement, or would have simply mentioned if they find her attractive or not:
good grief
What's the deal with skinny waif-like girls??? How is that really more sexy and fit than Ashley Graham?? hahaha ....
my vote on Svetlana - not attractive .... far too skinny and likely lots of unnaturalness.
I dated a bodybuilder once .... that man was NOT fit. Looked great in a pair of basketball shorts .... but so fucking self-centered and no fun "I can't eat that .... I only consume this ...." boring as shit. And .... I hated putting my head on his chest .... is was like concrete.
As many women here have attested (in other threads as well) .... it's the personality and the kindness and the humour a guy has that interests her .... not the stunning shape of his body [or cock] (and if one lived here on the West Coast ... likely many of those hunky guys are gay).
Idk... Gryffindor?
If that's what they call "plus-sized..."
Advanced Wordsmith
In response to the original question - I find it a little insulting to insinuate that people's personal preferences can somehow be 'less evolved'. Would you say that someone's attraction towards a certain sex, skin tone, hair color, eye color, etc. is somehow a sign of them being behind?
Sure, what is presented to us through the media has an impact on perceptions, but so do our interactions with people. If we shouldn't judge people for liking someone of the same sex, why would we judge someone for liking people of a certain body type? Are we going to draw a magic line somewhere and bash people who like women both heavier and thinner than a made up ideal?
Bottom line - people like what they like, AND THAT'S OK. Isn't that what Lush is all about? This is supposed to be a place about being non-judgmental about others sexual preferences.
Sure, what is presented to us through the media has an impact on perceptions, but so do our interactions with people. If we shouldn't judge people for liking someone of the same sex, why would we judge someone for liking people of a certain body type? Are we going to draw a magic line somewhere and bash people who like women both heavier and thinner than a made up ideal?
Bottom line - people like what they like, AND THAT'S OK. Isn't that what Lush is all about? This is supposed to be a place about being non-judgmental about others sexual preferences.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by VanGogh
As many women here have attested (in other threads as well) .... it's the personality and the kindness and the humour a guy has that interests her .... not the stunning shape of his body [or cock] (and if one lived here on the West Coast ... likely many of those hunky guys are gay).
That's all fine and good, but as your example points out - the guy with the body got his foot in the door despite having a chest you didn't want to put your head on and not being fun to hang out with.
As many guys will attest to - a lot of the time it's damn hard for a guy to get the girl to notice the personality, kindness, and humor without the body...
Alpha Blonde
I've been waiting a while to post my own thoughts on this one because I didn't want to unfairly steer the convo or discussion in one way or another. The post was really meant to provoke thought on the whole concept of female beauty in the industry with that ever-underlying vein of debate over 'personality vs looks', and judgment - for one viewpoint or another.
Straight up, if I was running the marketing or PR at SI, Dove, Maxim, Vogue or Playboy, I'd only be after maximum profits. If I knew that bald guys with handlebar moustaches in speedos would sell the maximum number of mag copies or products, that's what I'd feature. It would have little to do with what I personally find attractive in my own life. Clearly ads are geared toward the majority of whatever that demographic finds aesthetically pleasing.
When it comes to SI... the models are chosen to appeal to a very specific demographic of guys, which is a readership of 78% male, with a median age of 37 yrs old, and an average income of 60K. The majority want to see the best of the best, the fit hotties, the 'dream girls' that they maybe don't get a chance to date or have sex with in regular life. They are practically biologically programmed to respond to healthy bodies in their prime. I think Ashley Graham is a beautiful girl, but I'm not offended that bigger girls are often excluded from these types of magazines. They feature what sells.
I've seen this questioned in the past and how mainstream beauty images are blamed on the industry and that only featuring fit, beautiful people in mags, hollywood movies, and advertisements somehow fosters or warps our own impressions of what we find attractive. That if there was more representation of body types and looks, that we, as a society, would become more all-inclusive and accepting and more likely to focus on the inside rather than the outside.
For the most part I disagree with this argument, with one caveat. Extreme versions of beauty do have the capability of distorting younger minds (particularly of teenage girls). They have yet to understand that fashion and beauty is sold as a fantasy and in efforts to differentiate, images can be taken to bizarre levels. I think the industry has made an effort to curb the 'glamour' of eating disorders in recent years, but they have yet to cut down on the photoshopping - which I personally think makes images less attractive. The more glossy they make the photos, the more the models start to appear computer-generated and they all start looking the same.
I think it also speaks to the irony that many mainstream women's magazines have chosen to feature a 'plus-sized' model on their covers in recent years only to find that those issues aren't selling as successfully compared to issues featuring typical models. So, women aren't buying into it either, despite lots of PC lip-service about wanting diversity. Money talks, so you can't blame the magazines or industry for not featuring more body diversity if consumers aren't responding to it. Ultimately we drive these industries, not the other way around.
As an off-topic observation - I do find it interesting that many people ardently subscribe to the idea that looks don't (and shouldn't) matter and that it's only about the personality and heart of a person etc. yet they would feel totally comfortable putting down the looks of a certain segment of the population and being totally exclusionary (eg. this guy or girl is too muscular, that girl is too skinny, she has implants - blech!, she wears too much makeup, there's nothing to hold onto etc). If looks don't matter, why would it be ok to bash any of these people either? Maybe they're wonderful, smart people with a heart of gold. How is it any different than saying someone wouldn't date an overweight person or a guy with a small dick etc?
A couple of years ago, I made a thread about breast implants in the 'Ask the Guys' and I remember reading the answers and opinions over the years which were about 95% negative with many mean-spirited comments about how disgusting it was and one guy even went so far as to say that he wouldn't even be *friends* with a woman who had breast implants. Nobody said a word to the contrary or got their back up at all. But if anyone were to say they refused to be friends with overweight people, I'm pretty sure they'd get a healthy dose of forum-smackdown.
I think it's just something worth thinking about when people put out there that skinny girls are just a bag of bones or how unattractive their bodies are, or how fake breasts = fake girl and it's a total turn off, while feeling virtuous or morally superior about stating a preference for an all-natural thick and curvy girl that at the heart of it, they're really no different than the people saying that want a fit guy or girl with a beautiful face. Skinny-bashing can hurt the feelings of a naturally thin girl that doesn't put on weight easily just as much as fat-bashing hurts bigger girls that are having trouble losing the pounds. And saying how revolting someone finds breast implants probably doesn't go over well with women who are post-mastectomy or were just looking for that extra boost of self-confidence and went up one cup-size.
Looks do factor into attraction. There's nothing wrong with being into one look and not another. And whatever criteria you go by doesn't make you more or less superficial than another person's criteria. Saying "personality is the only thing that matters" is a fair opinion, but you have to live by that one with zero judgment and zero preference. When it comes down to it - let's be real - very few do.
Anyway - good discussion in this thread from everyone. I've enjoyed reading the different viewpoints so far!
Straight up, if I was running the marketing or PR at SI, Dove, Maxim, Vogue or Playboy, I'd only be after maximum profits. If I knew that bald guys with handlebar moustaches in speedos would sell the maximum number of mag copies or products, that's what I'd feature. It would have little to do with what I personally find attractive in my own life. Clearly ads are geared toward the majority of whatever that demographic finds aesthetically pleasing.
When it comes to SI... the models are chosen to appeal to a very specific demographic of guys, which is a readership of 78% male, with a median age of 37 yrs old, and an average income of 60K. The majority want to see the best of the best, the fit hotties, the 'dream girls' that they maybe don't get a chance to date or have sex with in regular life. They are practically biologically programmed to respond to healthy bodies in their prime. I think Ashley Graham is a beautiful girl, but I'm not offended that bigger girls are often excluded from these types of magazines. They feature what sells.
I've seen this questioned in the past and how mainstream beauty images are blamed on the industry and that only featuring fit, beautiful people in mags, hollywood movies, and advertisements somehow fosters or warps our own impressions of what we find attractive. That if there was more representation of body types and looks, that we, as a society, would become more all-inclusive and accepting and more likely to focus on the inside rather than the outside.
For the most part I disagree with this argument, with one caveat. Extreme versions of beauty do have the capability of distorting younger minds (particularly of teenage girls). They have yet to understand that fashion and beauty is sold as a fantasy and in efforts to differentiate, images can be taken to bizarre levels. I think the industry has made an effort to curb the 'glamour' of eating disorders in recent years, but they have yet to cut down on the photoshopping - which I personally think makes images less attractive. The more glossy they make the photos, the more the models start to appear computer-generated and they all start looking the same.
I think it also speaks to the irony that many mainstream women's magazines have chosen to feature a 'plus-sized' model on their covers in recent years only to find that those issues aren't selling as successfully compared to issues featuring typical models. So, women aren't buying into it either, despite lots of PC lip-service about wanting diversity. Money talks, so you can't blame the magazines or industry for not featuring more body diversity if consumers aren't responding to it. Ultimately we drive these industries, not the other way around.
As an off-topic observation - I do find it interesting that many people ardently subscribe to the idea that looks don't (and shouldn't) matter and that it's only about the personality and heart of a person etc. yet they would feel totally comfortable putting down the looks of a certain segment of the population and being totally exclusionary (eg. this guy or girl is too muscular, that girl is too skinny, she has implants - blech!, she wears too much makeup, there's nothing to hold onto etc). If looks don't matter, why would it be ok to bash any of these people either? Maybe they're wonderful, smart people with a heart of gold. How is it any different than saying someone wouldn't date an overweight person or a guy with a small dick etc?
A couple of years ago, I made a thread about breast implants in the 'Ask the Guys' and I remember reading the answers and opinions over the years which were about 95% negative with many mean-spirited comments about how disgusting it was and one guy even went so far as to say that he wouldn't even be *friends* with a woman who had breast implants. Nobody said a word to the contrary or got their back up at all. But if anyone were to say they refused to be friends with overweight people, I'm pretty sure they'd get a healthy dose of forum-smackdown.
I think it's just something worth thinking about when people put out there that skinny girls are just a bag of bones or how unattractive their bodies are, or how fake breasts = fake girl and it's a total turn off, while feeling virtuous or morally superior about stating a preference for an all-natural thick and curvy girl that at the heart of it, they're really no different than the people saying that want a fit guy or girl with a beautiful face. Skinny-bashing can hurt the feelings of a naturally thin girl that doesn't put on weight easily just as much as fat-bashing hurts bigger girls that are having trouble losing the pounds. And saying how revolting someone finds breast implants probably doesn't go over well with women who are post-mastectomy or were just looking for that extra boost of self-confidence and went up one cup-size.
Looks do factor into attraction. There's nothing wrong with being into one look and not another. And whatever criteria you go by doesn't make you more or less superficial than another person's criteria. Saying "personality is the only thing that matters" is a fair opinion, but you have to live by that one with zero judgment and zero preference. When it comes down to it - let's be real - very few do.
Anyway - good discussion in this thread from everyone. I've enjoyed reading the different viewpoints so far!
Active Ink Slinger
I agree with posters that like plusher bods. Nothing against thin but the full-figured women are more appealing to me - NOT FATTY. Just MHO 
A determined person with perseverance can overcome many obstacles. They can, many times, perform better than those who are more intelligent, stronger and with better finances by determination and perseverance
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Dancing_Doll
When it comes to SI... the models are chosen to appeal to a very specific demographic of guys, which is a readership of 78% male, with a median age of 37 yrs old, and an average income of 60K. The majority want to see the best of the best, the fit hotties, the 'dream girls' that they maybe don't get a chance to date or have sex with in regular life. They are practically biologically programmed to respond to healthy bodies in their prime. I think Ashley Graham is a beautiful girl, but I'm not offended that bigger girls are often excluded from these types of magazines. They feature what sells.
Hmm I wonder if they are trying to expand their demographic or just wanted to create a little controversy? I live in a college town with thousands of artsy, liberal students running around, and it's not unusual to see a cute plus size girl with a cute but lean guy. I'd think that a 22 year old music student might have a more expansive idea of hotness than a 30 something jock.
I don't know if I've ever actually looked at the swimsuit issue. Do they ever feature models with tattoos? I actually remember when Tyra Banks was the first African-American cover model and it was considered a huge deal. I think it's great that Ashley is featured, but I agree with you. I'd be very far from offended if she hadn't been. Sports Illustrated is usually not even on my radar tbh.
And yeah, wtf with thin-bashing. It's very ugly and unnecessary.
Alpha Blonde
Quote by jollylolly
Hmm I wonder if they are trying to expand their demographic or just wanted to create a little controversy?
Not sure. I think controversy helps for sure - it gets people talking and paying attention to the issue.
Right after talk about Ashley Graham started, Sports Illustrated announced that they were going to feature Robyn Lawley as a '2015 Swimsuit Rookie' and she's being classed as the first plus-size model to "officially pose for SI" (ie. not paid advertising like A.G.).
Robyn is listed as being anywhere from a size 12-16 when I looked her up online. She looks pretty healthy/fit to me. Especially in that first pic, I wouldn't even register that she was 'plus-sized' if I opened up the magazine.
And - not sure about the girls with tattoos being featured. Maybe some regular S.I. readers can weigh in on that one? I have a thing for sexy girls with full tatt-sleeves, but yeah, I'd be surprised if S.I. had ventured into that market. They seem to keep things pretty 'red-blooded American male' traditional calendar-girl style.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Dancing_Doll
Not sure. I think controversy helps for sure - it gets people talking and paying attention to the issue.
Right after talk about Ashley Graham started, Sports Illustrated announced that they were going to feature Robyn Lawley as a '2015 Swimsuit Rookie' and she's being classed as the first plus-size model to "officially pose for SI" (ie. not paid advertising like A.G.).
Robyn is listed as being anywhere from a size 12-16 when I looked her up online. She looks pretty healthy/fit to me. Especially in that first pic, I wouldn't even register that she was 'plus-sized' if I opened up the magazine.
And - not sure about the girls with tattoos being featured. Maybe some regular S.I. readers can weigh in on that one? I have a thing for sexy girls with full tatt-sleeves, but yeah, I'd be surprised if S.I. had ventured into that market. They seem to keep things pretty 'red-blooded American male' traditional calendar-girl style.
She's obviously gorgeous but I guess I'm confused about what is considered plus size lol.
I think it is about time sports illustrated did something like this. There should be no controversy with this or attention brought to this as it has. Ashley is a beautiful woman that most people agree should not considered a plus size model. She is a model in all sense of the word model. Beautiful , smart and has what most people think as a beautiful figure.