By Grand Rapids Anonymous
monday, may 15, 2023 at 2:23:00 p.m. edt
“cnn—
Martha Stewart is among the cover models for the 2023 sports illustrated swimsuit issue.
“the lifestyle businesswoman, 81, is the oldest swimsuit model the magazine has featured, calling the fact ‘historic.’
[GRA: No it isn’t, it’s ridiculous—big difference.]
“‘I like that picture,’ Stewart said of her cover shot as she revealed it on monday’s Today show.
Stewart posed in the dominican republic for the shoot and appears in a total of ten looks.
“‘when I heard that I was going to be on the cover of sports illustrated swimsuit, I thought, “Oh, that’s pretty good, I’m going to be the oldest person I think ever on a cover of sports illustrated,”’ Stewart said, adding, ‘And I don’t think about age very much, but I thought that this is kind of historic.
“In a tweet, sports illustrated called the cover ‘epic.’
“‘when we said this year was going to be epic, we meant it,” si tweeted.
GRA: “Epic” is outstanding, tremendous, a great feat—which this photo spread is not.
NO ONE wants to see the elderly in a one piece suit, but si has already brought trannies and obese chicks into their swimsuit harem, so this is not a surprise.
I would vomit, if I got si years ago, and Katherine Hepburn was posing at age 85 in an issue. But back then it was Rachel Hunter, Elle McPherson, et al.
What is wrong with people in business these days? Next year—midgets?
--GRA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
These are not "historic" events,that Sports Illustrated brags about,they are bizarre presentations that are being forced on subscribers for God knows what reason.If there was a demand for 80 year olds in bathing suits,AARP would already be pressing issues to satisfy that interest--which DOESN'T EXIST!
To try to fathom the motive of the editors,publishers or other culprits at fault in this demented decision-making process,I will stretch my imagination so far and come up with the following.This is my explanation of WHY they are constantly grossing their subscribers out:
The wackos in their offices have come to believe that all body types(including amputees),ages,sexual misfits and races need to be accepted by the masses.We must look at flawed bodies without the enjoyment we would have looking at REAL swimsuit models,because we must be TOLERANT of those categories OTHER than supermodel.
HA!
I will NOT be tolerant,I will not buy a magazine that does not understand what men want to see in a swimsuit issue--beautiful,fit,young women(between 18 and 40).
How far will they push the limits of their "vision" for the swimsuit issue?
Will they go underage?10,11,12 year olds?Why not-- it'd be "historic".Corpses in caskets,in bikinis--NEVER been done before--I guarantee it.
I subscribed to SI in the 70s,I have the FIRST swimsuit issue somewhere,but that's when things were NORMAL.Sports were played by men vs men,no blm b.s.and Christie Brinkley looked at me from the pages of Sports Illustrated,in a bikini(barely).
There's nothing "normal" happening in 2023.
P.S.Watch out--Lizzo can't be far behind for future issues.
--GRA
Of course these days saying "midgets" is like saying the "N" word. You are supposed to say "little people." But I am sure you don't care--and neither do I. I remember when they had little people throwing contests in Australia--not the shrimps throwing things, but being thrown.
jerry pdx
I will NOT be tolerant,I will not buy a magazine that does not understand what men want to see in a swimsuit issue--beautiful,fit,young women(between 18 and 40).
Yes, 1,000%...I have no problem with diversifying the models...as long as they stay WITHIN those parameters. If they want to feature a Tyra Banks, then no problem, she had a spectacular body and gorgeous face, but don't put her on now that she's pumped out some kids and is approaching the wall. However, not too many models of color, I still prefer to see White women with spectacular bodies and gorgeous faces. The day they feature Lizzo is the day SI is dead to me, this Martha Stewart nonsense is pushing it real hard but Lizzo is an assault on the human reason.
Exactly.What's wrong with midget? "Little person" is fine,but no big(so to speak)deal.A Lilliputian?A dwarf?What's the difference?I don't mean literally.As I've written a few times,the funniest jokes to me are Polish jokes--I'm part Polack.No actually,black jokes are funnier,but I'm not upset by Polish jokes--love 'em.If everyone in the country got a sense of humor back,there wouldn't be mass shootings as we see constantly.
I guarantee it.
--GRA
jerry pdx
Yes, How exactly is midget, or dwarf, offensive but "little person" is not? They are all descriptors, not slurs of any kind and finding offense in one but not the other is purely subjective. I understand it could be very difficult to be born with dwarfism and in no way would want to diminish that but trying to find some kind of bias where none exists is a way of forcing more guilt on regular size folks.
"What is wrong with people in business these days?"
All is one big absurd joke. Surely these business types realize they are probably hurting their firm but they just don't seem to care.
All for at most 1 % to 2 % of the population.
Post a Comment