Columnist Dean Juipe: SI swimsuit issue is now soft porn

Dean Juipe

Monday, Feb. 23, 2004 | 9:25 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

Hey, it's the swimsuit issue and who wouldn't enjoy seeing a bunch of beautiful girls with next to nothing on?

But there's something a little more calculated, a little more perverse going on in this year's edition of the annual Sports Illustrated review of frisky beach wear. Yeah, this year several of the girls aren't wearing anything at all.

This is what has come to be known as soft porn. It's revealing and it's just one twist or turn away from being exiled to the men's section of your local bookstore or magazine rack.

It's reprehensible that the word "sports" appears anywhere on the cover of the magazine or that a prosperous, multinational conglomerate such as Time Inc. would continue to push this special edition as a fashion necessity or a winter respite for the deprived, the depraved or the snowbound.

Here's what it really is: It's debasing to women, probably offensive to little girls and insulting to men who subscribe to SI purely for its perspective on legitimate sports.

It's a scam in its own cold-hearted way, a blatant exploitation of females and easily led advertisers. I never liked the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue -- although I liked it even less years ago when it was included in that week's regular issue and not published as a separate issue, as it is now -- and still marvel after all these years how some powerful organization or lobby such as NOW hasn't made a concerted effort to extract some penance from Time or even bring it to its knees.

Where, in the annals of good journalism, does it say an entity such as SI should throw its mores into the wastebasket once a year so that it can suck on the teat of promiscuity? Give me a break, the SI swimsuit extravaganza -- it's up to a whopping 226 ad-clogged pages this year, I noticed before tossing it out -- has far less to do with fashion than it does ribald fantasy.

It's a way to make money for Time Inc., that's what it is.

So why then doesn't Time just go for it and produce a men's magazine every month? Why does it masquerade a swimsuit issue that frequently lacks models with swimsuits as something every red-blooded male needs or wants to find in his mail box every February?

Why not just line up some naked women, photograph them and take on Playboy, Penthouse and the like?

Actually, it appears as if SI is inching that way. If it can defy the censors and good taste with a swimsuit issue that is short on swimsuits, it can certainly take the next step and remove the beads, branches and towels that the models and photographers use in a feeble attempt to be daring.

If it can get former tennis prodigy Anna Kournikova to pose in a swimsuit, as she somewhat surprisingly did this year, is it too ridiculous to believe they're already working on getting her to "go all the way" next time around?

The corporate execs at Time are apt to already be plotting Anna in a fig leaf in 2005 and, if the public (i.e., NOW) continues its passivity, maybe Anna baring it all in '06.

By then, what once was a lighthearted look at swimsuits may have evolved -- or dissolved -- into a new reality where SI can drop its swimsuit smoke screen and call this ridiculous special issue what it really is. Something like "Nudist Camp Bimbos" might hit the nail on the head.

archive