Community Chat

[jubilant]

On 2/7/2015 hckynut said: My opinion? Not not sure if I answered this post already but just in case I haven't, I think it was a very well taken photo.

Ha! I'll bet you did think that........

[jubilant]

Oh, I wanted to say Happy Anniversary a little early to you and Cindy, John. Your post before was so sweet and I'm glad your memories of Feb. 14th are good ones now.

[child prodigy]

The model and the bikini are fine. Pulling down the bottom to show her bald mound is just focusing on her crotch. Why make it so in your face? Take that to mean whatever you want.

[OC FRESH]

If she hadn't pulled the bottoms down like that then it would've been a very mediocre picture and she wouldn't have made the cover.

I'll bet she's so proud.

[AngelPuppy1]

I personally don't think you have to show everything you have to look alluring and sx*y and/or just plain beautiful!

There is such a thing as having class even if you are showing a little skin.

I thought that cover was trashy. She wanted to get a lot of attention -- she got it. Good for her. Not. I would not be proud if my daughter was posing like that.

Yes, she is beautiful --- so what? I still think it was tasteless, cheap and vulgar.

My husband felt the same way. He said -- sure, she's a pretty girl, but I think she looks cheap. He said, I would not want my girlfriend, wife, daughter, to do that. Money or no money.

[dooBdoo]

On 2/6/2015 lulu2 said:

On 2/6/2015 Oostende said:

She's a beautiful girl but I find the picture and the pose to be in poor taste. It is tedious and trite.

I find a false equivalency between nude statues or paintings. I admire art for the innovation, the vision, the exquisite techniques, and the feelings a piece of art can inspire. Art is transcendent.

A semi-nude image on a sports magazine can hardly compare to the Venus de Milo.

For the record, I love beautiful women. I am surrounded by them daily. Nudity doesn't bother me. This particular photo fails miserably at being innovative, provocative, or thoughtful. It is mundane and as such tries to provoke a response by being merely titillating. In fact, I propose we place this very picture in the dictionary to define the idiom "poor taste."

You have a wonderful command of our language.

I could not agree more with your response.

I agree, lulu2!

What an eloquent response. I couldn't have said it so well, but I do agree with you, Oostende.

[WaJa61]

On 2/6/2015 sunshine45 said:

On 2/6/2015 terrier3 said:

On 2/6/2015 WaJa61 said:

It is p-graphic enough in seksual suggestiveness that I would choose to not further support SI, if I were a subscriber. The model, her body shape and rather or not the image has been enhanced is all beside the point to me.

This is lewd????

I don't think so.

Guys buy it every year JUST for this issue...it's a big hit.

I don't like the body paint shots inside though...they ARE truly not wearing clothes.

i dont think so either.......far from it actually.

Another inch lower and it would have been full frontal (bottom) nudity, so it's not far from it by my filter. My problem with this stems from the mainstreaming of soft p*rn that is ever 'inching' closer to the hardcore stuff.

Had one of my adult sons walked in and tossed this swimsuit issue on the coffee table (as in past times), I would have asked him to remove it from the possible sight of my 5-y/o granddaughter. Never will the day come, that I would want her to assume that I feel what is depicted there is acceptable, by seeing it in my home.

If others freely choose to support p*rn in their homes, that is their right to subscribe to it. This is a sports magazine. Any of the large pics of the same model posted in this thread would have been acceptable by my personal standards. But then without the edge, it likely would not have won the coveted cover. Since SI are obviously pushing the envelope in this raunchy direction, they need to relabel the magazine for adults only.

[Oostende]

On 2/8/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 2/6/2015 lulu2 said:

On 2/6/2015 Oostende said:

She's a beautiful girl but I find the picture and the pose to be in poor taste. It is tedious and trite.

I find a false equivalency between nude statues or paintings. I admire art for the innovation, the vision, the exquisite techniques, and the feelings a piece of art can inspire. Art is transcendent.

A semi-nude image on a sports magazine can hardly compare to the Venus de Milo.

For the record, I love beautiful women. I am surrounded by them daily. Nudity doesn't bother me. This particular photo fails miserably at being innovative, provocative, or thoughtful. It is mundane and as such tries to provoke a response by being merely titillating. In fact, I propose we place this very picture in the dictionary to define the idiom "poor taste."

You have a wonderful command of our language.

I could not agree more with your response.

I agree, lulu2!

What an eloquent response. I couldn't have said it so well, but I do agree with you, Oostende.

Thank you very much, dooBdoo! That's very kind of you.

[Pqfan]

I think that the bikini bottom is too small and she looks so stupid pulling her pants down like she should be in the bathroom.