Did Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue go too low with Hannah Davis’s bikini bottom?
Hannah Davis isn’t naked on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s annual Swimsuit Issue, but she almost is. The 24-year-old model and girlfriend of retired New York Yankee Derek Jeter is pictured tugging seductively at her bikini bottom, which is slung so low that a centimeter more would make the shot more suitable for Playboy.
The shot has caused several people to question whether Sports Illustrated has, um, dipped a little too low by giving Davis’s pelvis prime real estate on the the annual issue’s cover. “Will we all be desensitized when SI debuts a swimsuit issue with a bottomless model? Seems like we’re gettin there,” People magazine senior writer Lynette Rice said on Twitter.
7:23 AM, you're the one that needs to get a grip - air brush or no air brush, if you want to go look at pictures of naked and almost naked women so be it, but not everyone does and she is disgusting for allowing them to put her picture on the magazine like this.
I think its terrible. She looks like a slut. People leave nothing to the imagination anymore. I dress modestly and leave private areas for my husband's eyes only. And if you know me, you would agree I am in no way a prude.
8:38 I don't buy any magazines, let alone the swimsuit issue, or any other nude magazines, as I am not a desperate loner.
If you don't like the image, don't buy it, don't be a member of their website, etc. The "people" who complain about this are not their target audience. They, like you, just like to hear themselves bitch.
It is hard enough being a mother of young boys...then comes this jumping out from the supermarket isle as you are checking out. Put a lid on it or call it Porno. I'm sick of explaining why this is "not normal behavior" to my children. No wonder young me think something more is EXPECTED. UGH!
Time magazine had a bad cover a couple of years ago and my neighbors child was picking up our mail and saw it. His mother was so upset. I no longer get Time. I wish they would think before putting questionable situations on the cover or just put it in a wrapper.
The photo surely wasn't done by a professional. It looks no different that the millions of pictures girls put of their facebooks of themselves. She really could pass for a meth abuser in this photo. Not a thing attractive about it.
Yeah, I think it goes too far because like someone else said, you're in the store with your kid and her blank is right at his eye level and fun fun you've got a teachable moment, but in the meantime, Playboy is behind a brown wrapper.
It's like the TIME cover with the Mom breastfeeding the big 3-year-old with the headline "Are you woman enough" or some such bull. The mother even said that photo was kind of an awkward pose. Hey, I support breastfeeding and if parents feel it's a good idea until the kid is 3 or 4, that's their business. I support public breastfeeding, too.
But, I guess I'm getting like Billy Crystal. I'd really rather not have everything in my face, whether it is straight sex, gay sex, magazine covers putting a boob, butt or crotch in my eye.
I know it's there. I'm okay with that, but really, I just came to buy some broccoli, okay?
.jpg)
By crackie I's say no!
ReplyDeleteJust proves the old adage, "Sex sells and more sex sells more!"
ReplyDeleteAmerica , land of sex , drugs and plain a$$ stupid people.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like it's really her... airbrushed to hell. Not that I'm complaining, but people who would oppose this picture need to get a grip.
ReplyDeleteBad photoshop job, she looks slightly preggers by the shadow casting on her belly.
ReplyDeleteDISGUSTING!
ReplyDeleteI just think it's dumb. All I can think of when I look at it, is she must have to pee really bad.
ReplyDelete7:23 AM, you're the one that needs to get a grip - air brush or no air brush, if you want to go look at pictures of naked and almost naked women so be it, but not everyone does and she is disgusting for allowing them to put her picture on the magazine like this.
ReplyDeleteThere's other magazines just for that
ReplyDeleteI think its terrible. She looks like a slut. People leave nothing to the imagination anymore. I dress modestly and leave private areas for my husband's eyes only. And if you know me, you would agree I am in no way a prude.
ReplyDeleteTruly a matter of opinion. You think it is too low.... I think it needs to go even lower!
ReplyDeleteDerek Jeter has great taste
ReplyDeleteI've never understood the "bare down there" philosophy.
ReplyDelete8:38 I don't buy any magazines, let alone the swimsuit issue, or any other nude magazines, as I am not a desperate loner.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the image, don't buy it, don't be a member of their website, etc. The "people" who complain about this are not their target audience. They, like you, just like to hear themselves bitch.
Yes,
ReplyDeletethis is an adult magazine cover and should be enclosed and sold as such. it's not a sports magazine.
She's too skinny, that's my only complaint.
ReplyDeleteWould you prefer a Burqa? A burqa is the pinnacle of modesty
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard enough being a mother of young boys...then comes this jumping out from the supermarket isle as you are checking out. Put a lid on it or call it Porno. I'm sick of explaining why this is "not normal behavior" to my children. No wonder young me think something more is EXPECTED. UGH!
ReplyDeleteYes they did, but parts of my mouth don't mind.
ReplyDeleteThat is yummy!!
ReplyDeleteLooks like porn to me. Shame on SI for losing the classiness they used to have. :-(
ReplyDeleteTime magazine had a bad cover a couple of years ago and my neighbors child was picking up our mail and saw it. His mother was so upset. I no longer get Time. I wish they would think before putting questionable situations on the cover or just put it in a wrapper.
ReplyDeleteThe photo surely wasn't done by a professional. It looks no different that the millions of pictures girls put of their facebooks of themselves.
ReplyDeleteShe really could pass for a meth abuser in this photo.
Not a thing attractive about it.
Yeah, I think it goes too far because like someone else said, you're in the store with your kid and her blank is right at his eye level and fun fun you've got a teachable moment, but in the meantime, Playboy is behind a brown wrapper.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the TIME cover with the Mom breastfeeding the big 3-year-old with the headline "Are you woman enough" or some such bull. The mother even said that photo was kind of an awkward pose. Hey, I support breastfeeding and if parents feel it's a good idea until the kid is 3 or 4, that's their business. I support public breastfeeding, too.
But, I guess I'm getting like Billy Crystal. I'd really rather not have everything in my face, whether it is straight sex, gay sex, magazine covers putting a boob, butt or crotch in my eye.
I know it's there. I'm okay with that, but really, I just came to buy some broccoli, okay?
The US should airdrop millions of the photo on the ISIS areas, and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeletehow about posting that "headlights" pic of Barrie that you took back in the day.
Derek Jeter, MVP on and off the field.
ReplyDeleteLets face it you wouldn't want your 14 year old daughter emulating that behavior. The cover of a magazine is not the place for a picture like that
ReplyDeleteSo, is she getting up from peeing or getting ready to sit down? And why are we there to watch?
ReplyDeleteCome on, people... The human body is beautiful... And this one is pretty good.
ReplyDelete