Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) TOBers to weigh in on the current hot topic capturing the publics attention. So what do you think of the SI swimsuit issue cover. Too much for the publics sensitive eyes??? ...Happy Hobbying... ...Crazy Horse... Edited February 11, 2015 by Crazy Horse addition 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 12, 2015 The NCSE calls it "borders on obscenity". Meh, who cares but IMHO, whats obscene is this sick relationship between the old geezer Dereck Jeter and her. But then again money talks and BS walks when the money runs out. LOL 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 12, 2015 The NCSE calls it "borders on obscenity". Meh, who cares but IMHO, whats obscene is this sick relationship between the old geezer Dereck Jeter and her. But then again money talks and BS walks when the money runs out. LOL Soooo ..... 40 is an old geezer and a 16 year age difference is a sick relationship. Wow. Every time I think I have heard it all ................ 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 12, 2015 I don't have a problem with it and don't get what all the fuss is about. This is the first time I have seen it so the link is below. Under the picture there is a poll and right now 68% say it's porn. This country is way too conservative. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/hannah-davis-yanks-bikini-bottoms-sports-illustrated-swim-too-hot-201552 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 12, 2015 I have not seen a SI that I would consider offensive 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 12, 2015 Prior to the arrival of the "clones," I would have shrugged it off. But, I think it is too low. Not because it is too sexy or whatever, but mostly because the inevitable question will be -- "Why is that lady pulling down her swimsuit?" -- "Umm, she's shaking the sand out???" oy 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 14, 2015 It's not the amount of skin which bothers me, it's the implied action of removal which conflicts with Puritan standards. My personal standards can't wait for her to shuck the whole fig leaf. BTW: Many ANNR clubs allow clothing, but NOT swim suits. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 15, 2015 It never ceases to amaze me that you can turn on the TV and see people getting shot and killed left and right, and that's fine. But a little skin is a problem. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 15, 2015 Dang it Fork, you stole my line. This society is so screwed up that we can watch graphic violence on prime time, but heaven forbid anything more that a tiny suggestion of sexy behavior. Whatever! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) In 2013 the SI swimsuit issue sold over 800,000 copies on newsstands, over ten times the number of a regular issue (about 68,000). A humorous retrospective on SI swimsuit issues from Last Week Tonight w/John Oliver: Edited February 16, 2015 by Anton Chigurh cause I felt like it 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2015 it's suggestive but she is really pretty and it's the SI swimsuit edition for crying out loud. i think people need to take a chill pill. it's not porn.. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) it's suggestive but she is really pretty and it's the SI swimsuit edition for crying out loud. i think people need to take a chill pill. it's not porn.. Well no, it's not porn but then there are all kinds of things that shouldn't be on public display. A strict interpretation of TOB posting rule #17 means that the cover photo is unsuitable for this board. Just because no hair or crack is visible it's not the pubic area??? I just had a photo censored here because even though you could see no genitalia you could see hair in the same area as the shaved SI cover. Are we at TOB really that puritanical??? I know the country in general is that puritanical. That's why most parents aren't ready to have the sex talk when the topic finally pops up. The embarrassment factor being too big to even think about having to do it. Magnify that embarrassment factor by being asked a question about the cover in a grocery store check out line surrounded by strangers and we come down to the core of the polling question. There's nothing wrong with the cover photo being appreciated by adults that want to see it and search it out but for everyone else is it suitable for pubic display(a pun not a misspelling). ...Happy Hobbying... ...Crazy Horse... Edited February 17, 2015 by Crazy Horse spelling 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 19, 2015 No one is forced to look at this, although I am having trouble not looking.... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I agree with this guy - Davis laughs. "The fact is, you can't see anything. So all we're talking about is what you cannot see. That's why I think it's funny," she says, adding that her parents liked the cover. "For the people that think it's too risqu?, it's probably just not the right magazine for them. I've been hearing, 'Yes, but it's on newsstands.' And I'm like, 'So is Playboy and FHM and porn magazines.' between social media and anything else these days, I think it's the least of your concerns." http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/si-swimsuit-models-on-the-cover-controversy-kings-of-leon-and-hot-chicken-20150217 Edited February 21, 2015 by Kaduk fixed quote... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
