Hannah Davis is this year's cover girl for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Page Six reports that along with modeling, Davis, 24, has been dating Derek Jeter, 40, on and off for two years.
In many stores, they put a black plastic "band" around magazines with objectionable covers. They always put one over Cosmo because of the headlines, but rarely put one over SI. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this one.
Last year's cover was worse. They shopped Kate Upton's bikini bottom until it was just covering her lady bits. They won't cover it because it passes the obscenity test.
If the average male gets off on it, it's not considered obscene.
As Dlisted said it's just a matter of time before they just have bottoms with a string to cover the clit. Seriously, what ever happened to pubic hair and why is it so bad now?
I think this is why this "beauty ideal" bothers me. I have no problem with society preferring one body type over the other. But the absence of waist/hip, the lack of pubic hair, the super flat stomach and the very childlike features of this woman make it hard for me to look at.
They showed this cover on a couple of morning news show yesterday. Unedited. Right out there. I was so surprised that programs (that are on air while your kiddies are eating breakfast) would do that. There are no standards of appropriateness anymore. I know it's all "let's be accepting and let's not be judgmental" these days, but come on.
I feel like an old-fashioned prude or something for saying this, but I think this is a bit much for a mainstream publication.
But the good thing is that there's not many more envelopes left to push. Let's go ahead and get full nudity out there in the mainstream (only female, of course) and maybe we can all move on. I'm sure Miley Cyrus will be leading the way.
I remember a really offensive photo in the Christina Aguilera days. It'S not new. She was looking super slutty, the photo was taken from the back with her looking provocatively at the camera. She was naked and right under her bum there was a black square that said "insert your ballot here". It was in Maxim or something. It was so vulgar.
@Meanie Yes the human body is beautiful. I think some of us are just a bit stunned by the necessity to catch her mid-taking off her panties. Was that really necessary?
auntliddy, I'd offer to help you pee on Mayer, but I'm afraid he might enjoy it too much, and what would be the fun in that?
I don't have a problem w/nudity or near-nudity per se; she's a lovely young woman and very easy on the eyes. I just think that particular shot might have been better as an inside photo, and something slightly less revealing for the cover--really, if I have to start worrying that I'm going to see your labia any second now, then it probably shouldn't be on the actual cover going on the actual newsstand. Put all the spank bank material you want on the inside, but not on the cover, OK? (Also, it's almost always women in these shots, although in all fairness some male athletes have been known to strip down for covers--I'm looking at you, Gronk and ESPN magazine--so how about a little gender parity here? Bring on the mostly naked guys, damn it!)
When I look at that it gives me the creeps. She looks like if she pushed her bikini down another inch or so, you'd be looking at a flat smooth sexless Barbie plastic nothing where her vag should be. She doesn't even look like she has any lady parts at all, like they just airbrushed it all away. Nope! Not sexy at all just creepy. What happened to pubic hair indeed?
@Rhysie, I don't disagree - the human body is beautiful. But this isn't about beauty or enjoying the human body. This is straight up nearly soft core porn aimed to get guys to buy Sports Illustrated. When was the last time you saw a nearly naked Chris Hemsworth or Matt Bomer on the cover of a woman's magazine? The understanding is that women can't enjoy nudity unless it's female nudity (thereby judging themselves, of course) but men MUST have pictures of nearly naked women and pumped up dudes to sell magazines. (Because men have no control over their sexual impulses. Ask yoga pants lady!)
It's like how nudity isn't a huge deal in Europe but in the US, a nip slip can cause an FCC investigation. But we can watch people being beheaded and stabbed and beaten and mutilated and it gets a PG-13 rating. Heaven forbid anyone see a boob but X-Men 2 got a PG-13 rating even with a decapitation.
It's funny because here in Europe you have topless women in women's magazines. It's really not a problem. But would not see as much very young looking women taking provocative poses. IT'S like women's media has a hold on how naked women are represented. Here men and women seem to have a similar relationship with representations of naked ladies. Not necessarily healthier representations, but it's out there for all of us to enjoy - and judge.
My inner Marx wants to believe that the institutionalized hairlessness is just another way for women to feel bad about themselves and for that industry to make bank.
She's two inches short of full frontal.
ReplyDeleteIn many stores, they put a black plastic "band" around magazines with objectionable covers. They always put one over Cosmo because of the headlines, but rarely put one over SI. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this one.
Last year's cover was worse. They shopped Kate Upton's bikini bottom until it was just covering her lady bits. They won't cover it because it passes the obscenity test.
DeleteIf the average male gets off on it, it's not considered obscene.
Unless it's straight up porn, then it's reluctantly considered obscene.
DeleteAs Dlisted said it's just a matter of time before they just have bottoms with a string to cover the clit. Seriously, what ever happened to pubic hair and why is it so bad now?
ReplyDeletePubic hair is coming back. I am sure of it.
DeleteSherry- my clitkini is already in the mail!
DeleteAgree with Sherry. Why must we all be hairless? And anyway, she is too young for him..
ReplyDeleteCase's it's the illusion of a very young girl with big boobs.
DeleteKelli- even more disturbing- ugh!
DeleteI think this is why this "beauty ideal" bothers me. I have no problem with society preferring one body type over the other. But the absence of waist/hip, the lack of pubic hair, the super flat stomach and the very childlike features of this woman make it hard for me to look at.
DeleteI think she is beautiful and I'm not offended in any way. It's a sexy picture, except . . .
ReplyDeleteIs it only me that bothered to look at her eyes and get freaked out. She looks demon possessed.
there is something really creepy about this photo. Who knows what it is.
DeleteThey showed this cover on a couple of morning news show yesterday. Unedited. Right out there. I was so surprised that programs (that are on air while your kiddies are eating breakfast) would do that. There are no standards of appropriateness anymore. I know it's all "let's be accepting and let's not be judgmental" these days, but come on.
ReplyDeleteI feel like an old-fashioned prude or something for saying this, but I think this is a bit much for a mainstream publication.
ReplyDeleteBut the good thing is that there's not many more envelopes left to push. Let's go ahead and get full nudity out there in the mainstream (only female, of course) and maybe we can all move on. I'm sure Miley Cyrus will be leading the way.
I remember a really offensive photo in the Christina Aguilera days. It'S not new. She was looking super slutty, the photo was taken from the back with her looking provocatively at the camera. She was naked and right under her bum there was a black square that said "insert your ballot here". It was in Maxim or something.
DeleteIt was so vulgar.
why was it necessary to have her just about to slip down the bottoms? She could just be in her suit and be sexy as hell but no they had to do this.
ReplyDeleteBecause we're talking about the cover now aren't we oh those clever minxes
DeleteWow, some uptight comments here, surprising me. The human body is beautiful. Naked or clothed.
ReplyDeleteNot some of the nudity I've seen.
DeleteAt any rate, one's private parts should remain private. At least in a mainstream magazine.
I don't want to be in line at a store and see a woman pulling her bottoms down. Thanks, but no thanks.
Can we stop objectifying women now? What's next, full nudity everywhere (female only, of course!)
@Meanie Yes the human body is beautiful. I think some of us are just a bit stunned by the necessity to catch her mid-taking off her panties. Was that really necessary?
DeleteHow many years until the cover model is peeing on John Mayer on the beach woo hoo yeah that is sport illustrated.
ReplyDeleteTina- ill pee on mayer!!!!!
Deleteauntliddy, I'd offer to help you pee on Mayer, but I'm afraid he might enjoy it too much, and what would be the fun in that?
DeleteI don't have a problem w/nudity or near-nudity per se; she's a lovely young woman and very easy on the eyes. I just think that particular shot might have been better as an inside photo, and something slightly less revealing for the cover--really, if I have to start worrying that I'm going to see your labia any second now, then it probably shouldn't be on the actual cover going on the actual newsstand. Put all the spank bank material you want on the inside, but not on the cover, OK? (Also, it's almost always women in these shots, although in all fairness some male athletes have been known to strip down for covers--I'm looking at you, Gronk and ESPN magazine--so how about a little gender parity here? Bring on the mostly naked guys, damn it!)
Robin, see your labia any minute, lmao, you win the internets for me!!!!
DeleteAnd she looks like camera caught her getting dressed, lol.
ReplyDeleteThat pose looks weird. If they were going for a sexy gaze, they missed by a mile. She looks like she's trying too hard.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI did not like the pulling down the bottoms thing. It's just nasty.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at that it gives me the creeps. She looks like if she pushed her bikini down another inch or so, you'd be looking at a flat smooth sexless Barbie plastic nothing where her vag should be. She doesn't even look like she has any lady parts at all, like they just airbrushed it all away. Nope! Not sexy at all just creepy. What happened to pubic hair indeed?
ReplyDelete@Rhysie, I don't disagree - the human body is beautiful. But this isn't about beauty or enjoying the human body. This is straight up nearly soft core porn aimed to get guys to buy Sports Illustrated. When was the last time you saw a nearly naked Chris Hemsworth or Matt Bomer on the cover of a woman's magazine? The understanding is that women can't enjoy nudity unless it's female nudity (thereby judging themselves, of course) but men MUST have pictures of nearly naked women and pumped up dudes to sell magazines. (Because men have no control over their sexual impulses. Ask yoga pants lady!)
ReplyDeleteIt's like how nudity isn't a huge deal in Europe but in the US, a nip slip can cause an FCC investigation. But we can watch people being beheaded and stabbed and beaten and mutilated and it gets a PG-13 rating. Heaven forbid anyone see a boob but X-Men 2 got a PG-13 rating even with a decapitation.
It's funny because here in Europe you have topless women in women's magazines. It's really not a problem. But would not see as much very young looking women taking provocative poses. IT'S like women's media has a hold on how naked women are represented. Here men and women seem to have a similar relationship with representations of naked ladies. Not necessarily healthier representations, but it's out there for all of us to enjoy - and judge.
DeleteYou know what? Look how we are all opining about this. This is what they want i guess.
ReplyDeleteSo her second claim to fame after her appearance is who she's dated.FFS,it's 2015
ReplyDeleteMy inner Marx wants to believe that the institutionalized hairlessness is just another way for women to feel bad about themselves and for that industry to make bank.
ReplyDeleteCompanies related to hair removal have an interest in branding hair as dirty and unsanitary. Just think about the recent Schick ad that compared beards to rodents!
Also, "The Tug" is really in for som reason, and there are lots of men's webpages like The Chive that have forums dedicated solely to it.
So Hannah's pose is really just an extension of that trend.
Plus, honestly, I really don't see this cover as any more scandalous than Upton's clitkini!
Wearing bikinis that low also elongates and thins out the torso.
DeleteMeh again.
ReplyDeleteMen have done that pose for years. You know that crotch V thing that is supposed to be an extension of the six pack? I don't know what they call it.
I just think her eyes are super creepy and I find it hilarious that nobody has bothered to even look at them.
I find the picture creepy. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who does.
ReplyDelete