So why shouldn’t “full-figured” women grace the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated and other such publications?
Because it “glamorizes them,” says former model Cheryl Tiegs in a UPI report.
She’s speaking out after Sports Illustrated highlighted one such model, Ashley Graham, in an attempt “to empower women and show there is no single beautiful body type,” the UPI report says.
But Cheryl disagrees.
“I don’t like that we’re talking about full-figured women because it’s glamorizing them because your waist should be smaller than 35 [inches],” UPI reports Tiegs saying at the 13th Annual Global Green USA Pre-Oscar Party. “That’s what Dr. Oz said, and I’m sticking to it. I don’t think it’s healthy. Her face is beautiful. Beautiful. But I don’t think it’s healthy in the long run.”
Hmm . . .
Objectively (i.e. journalistically) speaking, I sorta get what Cheryl is saying, from a narrow health perspective.
But I imagine many feminists just rolled their eyes — and perhaps threw up their hands in despair — because of a) Cheryl’s apparent double standard, and b) the idea that Sports Illustrated may be now sexually objectifying “full-figured” women, too.
In all fairness to the magazine, I think their motives are purer than sexploitation. After all, in the same issue, they featured a photo of a 56-year-old woman, Nicola Griffin, in a gold bikini — making her the oldest swimsuit model in their mag. The theme was “Swimsuits for All.”
From a naturist’s perspective, well, we stress the importance of not getting hung up on body image issues. Because we know that everybody is beautiful in their own way. And most naturist publications put little, if no, emphasis on sex appeal.
Still, Sports Illustrated’s annual swimsuit issue is what it is: eye candy with a degree of sexual titillation. And they are showing that woman are attractive — on the surface — in all shapes and sizes and ages.
Of course, we all know that beauty is only skin deep, don’t we . . .