Posted on 02/16/2014 2:15:20 PM PST by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
The annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue arrives on newsstands Tuesday. It features three semi-nude babes on the cover.
The issue is eagerly awaited by much of SI’s readership. However, let those of us who are Christ followers not deceive ourselves: the magazine’s swimsuit issue is nothing more than softcore pornography.
Indeed, SI’s cover, celebrating the 50th anniversary of its swimsuit issue, actually is more sexualized than the cover of the latest issue of Playboy, which marks the skin magazine’s 60th anniversary, and which features the model Kate Moss in a bunny costume.
What particularly offends about SI is its hypocrisy.
The magazine’s writers and editors pride themselves in being on the right side of controversial social issues that transcend sport. But they have been silent about the sports media’s shameless exploitation of young women for the lustful pleasure of men (and boys).
To wit: SI recently published a fawning cover story about Michael Sam, the former Missouri college football player who came out of the closet as a homosexual, who hopes to become the first openly-gay player in the NFL.
“America is ready for Michael Sam,” SI declared.
Then there’s SI’s campaign to compel the Washington Redskins to change its team name to comport with the magazine’s politically correct sensibilities. In fact, the mag’s NFL writer Peter King decided last football season he would no longer reference the franchise’s team name.
“It has nothing to do with calling anyone racist.” said King. “It’s just I’m uncomfortable using the name.”
Yet, SI’s writers and editors think it perfectly acceptable to pander to its preponderantly male readership with lascivious pictorials of young women that are seminude or fully nude (save for body paint).
MJ Day, the madam of sorts who edits the mag’s swimsuit issue, even goes so far as to suggest that the cover shot of models Nina Agdal and Lily Aldridge, “clad in orange thong bikini bottoms,” as the New York Daily News described their skimpy attire, and Chrissy Teigen, in a “barely-there pink bikini,” was perfectly wholesome.
As to the models themselves, who’ve sold their souls for fame and fortune, “They’re really good girls,” Day told the Newark Star-Ledger. “They’re the girl next door.”
Well, really good girls do not take their clothes off for the titillation of millions of men. And girls next door don’t strike come hither poses suggesting that they’re inviting a sex acts.
Of course, most of SI’s male readers look forward to this Tuesday’s arrival of the swimsuit issue. They can’t wait to ogle the scantily clad models therein.
But for those us who are Christ followers first, sports fans further down the list (behind family, country, et al.) we are instructed to be not “conformed to this world,” where soft core pornography has been mainstreamed by the popular culture.
No, we will not go to hell by viewing the risqué photos in SI’s swimsuit issue. But we certainly will be conducting ourselves outside of God’s will.
Indeed, in the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus declared, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
That’s why the men among us who are committed Christ followers will bring every lustful thought into captivity to the obedience of God. And that means avoiding SI’s soft core porn issue.
Dont fall for this .... this is pharasitical display of self righteousness... Like you need to tell others what he would approve of or not? Isnt this the log in your eye thing?
This reads like something one of those muzzie ayatollahs might write.
uh yeah no
it’s not
I am not a person that flashes a lot of flesh or that objectifies others
the SI swimsuit edition is sexualized garbage
Ok so would that also include michaelangelos David? Have you been protesting that? Or can only women be “Objectified?”
They often lead to things which do.
“Sometimes a swimsuit is just a swimsuit.” — Sigmund Freud
Of course not.
Would he approve of anyone's swimsuit? Did they have swimsuits in his day?
LOL I thought this was about Si on Duck dynasty.
While that may be true my family saw it 6ft tall projected on the wall at a chinese restaurant the other night. They were playing fox news. we looked away but we didnt choose to see it in the first place.
My wife once nervously asked about me looking at other women.
I replied simply “I appreciate beauty.”
She was satisfied.
I replied simply “I appreciate beauty.”
She was satisfied.
You got lucky. The correct answer is, "The comparison makes me appreciate what I have!"
The answer to the same question that which I dare not use:
“I may be on a diet but I can still look at the menu!”
Actually, my wife isn’t the least concerned. We’re both sixtysomethings but unlike me she is slim, youthful & worth a second look. Dangerous competition for the college babe wait staff wherever we go.
Well said. Except about me, but balding is not something I can do anything about.
My wife is about to turn 56 and is more than a match for most younger chicks. She does work at it and spends a lot of time taking care of herself.
I see the extreme negative comments from what I assume are female FReepers and can only surmise they have image issues and/or were dumped.
The women in the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s were hotter looking. The women in the issues today ahh...
“Lustful looks don’t spread STDs, nor do they create unwanted pregnancies.”
They can, however, cause hurt feelings that can weaken relationships.
Lots of sins start with lust.
So for a man to admire her beauty, even on the very scant hope that someday he might become her suitor, would be acceptable. Though not if he was a real creeper about it, that is, if he was so driven by lust that he acted in a beastly manner.
*****************************
What a sick mind. .....Men and women don’t look at and admire people of the opposite sex, whether in person or in film or print media, with the “hope” of becoming that person’s suitor. Their admiration of a person of the opposite sex does not indicate a ‘lusting’, as you put it, but just an appreciation of the beauty/handsomeness of someone.
I become more disappointed everytime I click on a FR headline and surprisingly find myself on the Religion forum, where so many comments displaying such bias explains why I opted out of organized religion at age 14; 57 years ago. I prefer my own beliefs in God to brainwashing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.