Last Saturday, Sports Illustrated announced the names of the three women that will grace the cover of their 2016 swimsuit issue. UFC star Ronda Rousey and models Hailey Clauson and Ashley Graham have been “crowned” as cover models and will be featured later this year. This is the first time in 52 years that Sports Illustrated has chosen to feature three models with different body types.
Sports Illustrated claims that their decision is “history in the making.” The magazine’s Assistant Managing Editor, MJ Day, stated that “beauty is not cookie cutter. Beauty is not ‘one size fits all’.” While I am all for featuring models of all shapes and sizes and eliminating body shaming, this statement seems contradictory to me. Beauty is not one size fits all? This coming from a magazine that, for decades, has primarily celebrated models who only display a size 0 figure? Why is Sports Illustrated just realizing this now? This is not a new concept, and it is sad that it is revolutionary to Sports Illustrated. MJ Day also mentioned that “every single woman that is booked for this magazine is cover worthy,” which makes me wonder, what entitles a magazine to determine who is worthy or beautiful? Are magazines and advertisers really looking to highlight models’ unique beauty or are these women only “worthy” of objectification and corporate profits?
Sports Illustrated must realize that their decision is not a revolutionary movement. We are living in a time where it should not be monumental to see a “plus-sized” model on a magazine’s cover. I look forward to the day when it is not considered newsworthy for a curvy woman to be featured on the pages of a magazine.
Sports Illustrated is following a trend but claiming it as their own. As companies such as Dove, Aerie by American Eagle and others make the transition to embracing individual beauty, all magazines and companies should make the transition as well. This is a trend that should continue with more than a select few “curvy models” featured per issue.
It is great that changes are being made. However, it is unfortunate to think that this is the spark that could ignite change in the modeling and advertising industry. Not because of statistics that show an increase in eating disorders in young girls and not to protect little girls from developing negative body images, but because of a “noble” decision made by Sports Illustrated.
Without a doubt, all three of these women are beautiful individuals. However, they do not need a magazine such as Sports Illustrated to validate their beauty. A magazine cannot decide what is or is not beautiful. We need to remember that Sports Illustrated is just one of many magazines that has utilized female sexuality to earn profit and we need to remember that this issue is no different.
People are willing to pay for objectification which makes it okay, right? After all, Sports Illustrated is a magazine about sports and competition. Swimming is a sport so why not market the swimsuits? Or is something else being marketed?