I’d never been remotely interested in wearing any of the “swimsuits” featured in SI. They are too provocative for my staid tastes.
The body paint swimsuits were far better than the tawdry, glittery pieces of fabric swimsuits.
If the comment section is any indication, the issue got VERY mixed reviews by men.
http://www.si.com/swim-daily/2016/01/20/ashley-graham-si-swimsuit-2016-rookie-reveal
Still not getting how a “sports magazine” justifies in this day and age its cover displaying women displaying themelves skanily clad. And how is this a sport?
So they are trying to be PC. It doesn’t matter. A woman, size 2 or 14, larger or smaller is beautiful. But displaying them on the front cover in a non sports way for a sports magazine seems to be exploitive. Just saying.
Its a magazine primarily read by men. The swimsuit issue typically hits newsstands a week or so after the Super Bowl during what is something of a lull in the sports world. Most guys who like sports also like women in bikinis.
@saillakeerie - your post about the magazine needing to maintain interest during a lull between the fall/winter and spring sport seasons reminds me of an old Mae West line about visiting between the seasons, but the full quote would definitely not be PG rated. My point is: sexual innuendo sells. In a magazine or a movie quote.
With a predominantly male subscription base I can understand the appeal of the swimsuit edition. Men like beautiful women and the swimsuit issue delivers. I try hard to view these sorts of spreads as “a celebration of the female form” rather than the objectification of women. I can’t get there with the nude spreads you find in Playboy and other similar publications, but as a woman even I can appreciate the SI pics.
What I don’t understand is why SI would not try to expand their base and also do an issue celebrating the male form. Men are not the only ones who enjoy the beauty of the opposite sex. Why not also do an issue featuring men and sell more magazines?
Because men won’t want to buy a magazine celebrating the male form. Whatever gains you pick up with females may well be lost by men who don’t buy if there are guys in it. And I am not sure many women are going to start buying SI because they celebrate the male form once every 52 weeks.
Playboy doesn’t do nudes anymore.
Sports often objectify those who participate in them. For people to find Lebron James interesting, he needs a prop. Swimsuit models don’t. 
Every single issue of SI features men.
Sure SI features men, but do they do an issue featuring men comparable to the swimsuit issue? Would there be a market for such an issue? I am not sure but I think there might be.
Take a look at the covers of 3 very popular men’s magazines:
https://40.media.■■■■■■■■■■/tumblr_lt2jet2qt51qhotsko1_500.png
http://people.southwestern.edu/~bednarb/su_netWorks/projects/pratt/gq_ben.jpg
http://www.magzter.com/US/Advanced-Research-Media,-Inc./Fitness-Rx-for-Men/Health/100732
I’d venture to guess that the swimsuit issue is the single SI issue with the highest female readership. I never read Sports Illustrated, but I often manage to see the swimsuit issue. Both men and women like to look at images of beautiful women. Just look at women’s fashion magazines.
Media folks - what’s the circ of Men’s Fitness, Men’s Health, etc relative to SI?
Most men reading fitness mags are not celebrating the male form as much as they are looking to improve their own. And you don’t try to sell those mags with a guy with a beer belly sitting on the couch eating Doritos on the cover. GQ I think is more of a metro guy mag. I don’t think the average guy who reads SI is looking for a mag celebrating the make form. And if is, there are mags out there.
Harvestmoon, the reason is the same reason that Playboy took off and Playgirl didn’t. Men like to look at attractive naked (or near naked) women more than women like to look at attractive naked men.
What I don’t understand is why anybody would pay money to look at pictures of naked (or scantily clad) people in a magazine. Well, anybody with Internet access, anyway.
“Most men reading fitness mags are not celebrating the male form as much as they are looking to improve their own.”
True for the other magazines, but hardly so for Sports Illustrated. It is a publication for fans of professional sports, meant to be read on the couch with a can of beer in hand.
How is that relevant to whether SI should put men in bathing suits in any issue?
My local grocery store (a regional chain) has all 3 covers available on their newsstand. The Ashley Graham cover is out in the open, but the other two covers are hidden behind an opaque barrier except for the title of the magazine. I’m not really getting what the store is signaling by doing this . . .
116- Very much. In support if your theory. SI is not a health, lifestyle, self-improvement, or fitness magazine for all, or even for men. It is a publication about pro sports, that's all, with mainly male subscriber base. No bashing intended.
I’m sure they are doing that because one of the other covers has a topless model and the other has a nude, but bodypainted, model. I think that is pretty consistent with the general policy, even though due to strategic hand placement and convincingly realistic body-paint, there’s not much of a difference in how revealing the images are.