S02.E02: Tobacco

[Athena]

Tobacco: Thanks to tobacco industry regulations and marketing restrictions in the US, smoking rates have dropped dramatically. John Oliver explains how tobacco companies are keeping their business strong overseas.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue - How Is This Still a Thing? We've noticed that the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue still exists but can’t quite figure out why.

[Victor the Crab]

Fuck the evildoers at Philip Morris for trying to sue the pants off of poorer nations because they want to introduce no brand packaging on their cigarettes. And huzzahs to Ollie for introducing the mascot Jeff the Diseased Lung in a Cowboy Hat and unleashing it to the world. Suck on that alongside your Marlboro 100s, you PMI asschunks!

 

I love seeing butthurt on display. Rafael Correa does not get that Ollie drinks his whine like it was finely aged wine.

 

And seeing how Fifty Shades Of Grey is doing as a movie has me saying WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THE OVERRATED PIECE OF SHIT THAT IS FIFTY SHADES OF GREY?!!

 

Be nice to the band America, Ollie. I loved their song A Horse with No Name. It was talked about the effects of Heroin.

[AimingforYoko]

I briefly felt sad that John Oliver can't/won't come back to do The Daily Show, but this episode really drove home that he's where he belongs.

You're doing God's work here, Ollie.

[dusang]

I sometimes worry that John is severely limiting his future travel options.

[peeayebee]

Great show. In the opening credit sequence, I saw a pic of Jon Stewart with the heading Hostus Maximus.

 

I know 50 Shades of Grey was a huge success as a book, and I understand that many people want to see the movie, but I'm kind of surprised at how uninterested I am in the whole thing. In the grocery store the other day (Valentine's Day, I think) was a display of 50 Shades of Grey wine (red and white) and cookies or something. The marketing is so OTT. I feel like a sober person in a room full of drunks. If I were a man, I could say my penis just yawned.

 

Love the whole Ecuadoran president vs John Oliver thing. 

 

 

Every Christmas my sister gives her husband the SI swimsuit calendar. It's a tradition. Ugh. 

 

And now the tobacco story. I had no idea PMI and other tobacco companies were suing countries. Unbelievable. Love what the show is doing with Jeff the Diseased Lung. The signs in Ecuador and the t-shirts in Togo were outstanding. I guess we're supposed to google Marlboro and Jeff to get him to appear in the search results?

[Chaos Theory]

Jeff the Diseased Lung in a Cowboy Hat is great. PMI suing poor counties when they try to enact the simplest of public safety measures is just so...evilish.

Wait! The Sports illustrated Swimsuit Issue is still a thing?

[Totale]

 

Be nice to the band America, Ollie. I loved their song A Horse with No Name. It was talked about the effects of Heroin.

 

I preferred Randy Newman's analysis, that it was "about a kid who thought he'd taken acid".

 

I hope they can have Rafael Correa on as a guest someday.

[attica]

My personal theory about the band America is that all the lyrics to all of their songs were written when high. If you're not listening closely, they seem to make sonic sense. The minute you start really listening, however, is when you get to WTF City: "The Tropic of Sir Galahad"?!? Time to freshen the water in your pipe, fellas. (In unrelated news, I once had a hairdresser whose daughter married one of the bandmembers: they played at her college, she went to the show, eyes locked, roadies were dispatched to bring her backstage, and Love Bloomed. Just like in the music videos!)

 

I know a guy named Jeff. He won't be happy being a diseased lung wearing a cowboy hat. Hee!

[Athena]

Why did they name him Jeff? Catchy though. In Togo, he'd be pronounce "Geff" though.

 

As usual, another brilliant episode. So glad it's back and we have 33 more episodes for the rest of this season.

[ganesh]

And seeing how Fifty Shades Of Grey is doing as a movie has me saying WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THE OVERRATED PIECE OF SHIT THAT IS FIFTY SHADES OF GREY?!!

 

It's fan fiction. For Twilight. How one could see this movie without bursting into laughter, I have no idea. 

 

Seriously though, there's like as many smokers in China alone than there are *people* in the United States. When I was in Japan, *everyone* smoked. 

 

I was laughing about the SI issue because I didn't have internet when I was growing up. Since, you know, it wasn't invented yet. But now? Ha.

[ChocolateAddict]

When he bought up tobacco, I knew he had to mention the Australian policy.  Even though the pictures (like the eye) are gross, the 'plain packaging' and the graphic images have been proven to discourage people from taking up smoking as well as encourage smokers to cut down/give up. Plus those pictures aren't just on packets,they are on buses, billboards and TVs.  Disgusting, yes, but it has totally put me off smoking for life!

[walnutqueen]

When he bought up tobacco, I knew he had to mention the Australian policy.  Even though the pictures (like the eye) are gross, the 'plain packaging' and the graphic images have been proven to discourage people from taking up smoking as well as encourage smokers to cut down/give up. Plus those pictures aren't just on packets,they are on buses, billboards and TVs.  Disgusting, yes, but it has totally put me off smoking for life!

 

Smoker here.  Don't give a flying fuck WHAT they put on their packaging as long as I can stlll get my Virginia Slims Light 120s - no substitutes will do.  And before y'all jump down my soon to be diseased throat, I live alone and don't subject anyone to my second hand smoke, nor do I litter, and I am well aware of the health dangers.  I LOVE smoking - always have, always will. I tell everyone not to do it, because it is addictive and bad for you, and I'm with you on the "tobacco companies are evil pariahs", but have had it up to HERE with all the militants trying to scare me straight.  Ain't working.  Just like the tobacco ads didn't work on me back in the day.  We all pick our poison.  (oh, and YOUR money isn't paying for my future health care, either - I've been paying into that shit for a lifetime and have yet to use it for anything other than the occasional pap smear).   :-)

[SpiritSong]

It's fan fiction. For Twilight. How one could see this movie without bursting into laughter, I have no idea. 

.

It's not just fan fiction. It is very, very BAD fan fiction. I consider it the worst written book in the history of language. Not to mention the hero is an abusive stalker and the heroine, supposedly a college graduate, seems to have an IQ hovering somewhere around 30. How this dreck ever became a success is one of the mysteries of the ages.

[dcalley]

The signs in Ecuador and the t-shirts in Togo were outstanding.

John's in enough trouble in Ecuador already. The signs were in Uruguay (which I did notice was mislabeled on the map!).

 

Dammit, I just found out I have wine in the fridge that's connected to Philip Morris/Altria. I had no idea they were in the wine business.

[attica]

I remember thinking 'gee, I'm stupid, I thought Uruguay had a coastline', and then, boom! I'm right after all. Thanks, Anthony Bourdain and your globe-hopping shows!

[Traveller519]

I always felt the strongest anti-smoking ad the Australian Health Council put out was the mother wondering how she was going to explain to her children that she was dying of lung cancer. My Bus in Sydney passed the BAT offices when I went to a client, they seemed to be doing pretty well out there!

 

Oliver has some of the biggest brass balls I've ever seen. He supremely loves taking down the evildoers and does things I think most others wouldn't.

[iMonrey]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say Phillip Morris has a legitimate gripe with countries that want to change their very branding with hideous and off-putting pictures. Look, we all know smoking is bad for you, but so is alcohol and so are sugary and salty snacks. We don't put disgusting, off-putting pictures on any of those products, and if we did I suspect those companies would sue as well. 

 

It's perfectly within the right of a government to ban a certain product altogether, or to run PSAs against its use, but so long as that product is legal I don't know what right the government has to change its packaging. It's either a legal product or it's not, period.

 

I also thought "why is SI Swimsuit edition still a thing" was one of the weaker "why is this a thing" reports. Yes you can get all the free porn you want online but SI isn't porn. Plus those models are probably so airbrushed it's practically fantasy. Different animal than porn, altogether. 

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I also thought "why is SI Swimsuit edition still a thing" was one of the weaker "why is this a thing" reports. Yes you can get all the free porn you want online but SI isn't porn. Plus those models are probably so airbrushed it's practically fantasy. Different animal than porn, altogether. 

The problem is more that a sports magazine shouldn't devote an issue to models in swimsuits. Imagine the controversy if a popular magazine started doing that in 2015.

[Chaos Theory]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say Phillip Morris has a legitimate gripe with countries that want to change their very branding with hideous and off-putting pictures. Look, we all know smoking is bad for you, but so is alcohol and so are sugary and salty snacks. We don't put disgusting, off-putting pictures on any of those products, and if we did I suspect those companies would sue as well.

It's perfectly within the right of a government to ban a certain product altogether, or to run PSAs against its use, but so long as that product is legal I don't know what right the government has to change its packaging. It's either a legal product or it's not, period.

.

But that is just it. WE know. As in rich western countries. What about poor countries where education is all but nonexistent. Half the population is illiterate. VHow would these people know? These are the countries PM is suing with a gross income that is larger the the countries they are selling the ciggaretts to. Hell the lawyers probably make more money then the entire country does.

[ottoDbusdriver]

Found a wikipedia entry on the subject.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging#Australia

 

One point in that article that added just an extra twist of weirdness to the whole proceedings

 

Government research found that olive green was the least attractive colour, particularly for young people. After concerns were expressed over the naming of the colour by the Australian Olive Association, the name was changed to drab dark brown.

 

Because you don't want to mess with the Australian Olive lobbyists -- those guys will mess you up. </sarcasm>

Edited February 17, 2015 by ottoDbusdriver

[Traveller519]

I think the  SI Swimsuit Issue is still "a thing" for the same reason the Christmastime Victoria's Secret fashion show is "a thing"

 

Sure I can go and find beautiful models or nakeder women on the internet without much trouble, but those are the two top avenues for showcasing the world's Super Models these days, and they maintain an air of legitimacy because of it. The production value is top rate, the models have been vetted to the highest level, and you can have a discussion with your co-workers about it.

[dusang]

I was actually surprised that Canada wasn't mentioned in the piece on tobacco -- although we don't change the logo, at least 50% of the package is covered with warnings and graphic images.  Although you have to have already made the decision to purchase the cigs before you'll see it -- the shelves holding cigarettes are behind the cash and are covered so there is no tempting display.

[attica]

the models have been vetted to the highest level

 

I....do not know what this means.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

They've been checked for heartworm?

[ganesh]

The problem is more that a sports magazine shouldn't devote an issue to models in swimsuits. Imagine the controversy if a popular magazine started doing that in 2015.

 

The other point they were trying to make is that SI has been using the issue as a marketing point for decades and things have of changed. It's also kind of weird and creepy now.

 

They should just feature athletes of both sexes instead of models. Update it for modern times. 

[possibilities]

RE governments altering packaging, I think it's analogous to saying: "We won't outright ban it, but you can't advertize it, either." It may be a strategic choice to say they don't want an underground illegal trade in cigarettes, but they don't want to make it easy, either. It's regulation. They can say you can't sell to children, you can't sell at schools, you can't have fancy packaging, we will tax it, you need to label ingredients... whatever terms they want. We have similar rules about various products in the USA.

 

The SI swimsuit issue allows SI to sell ads to "legitimate businesses" and there are people who would not be embarrassed to subscribe to Sports Illustrated, who would not feel like they could ever read any number of other magazines (or websites) with similar content. I don't know what SI usually prints, but does anyone know if they ever cover women's sports? Would they do a feature on "sportswear" for athletic swimmers? How craven it is will, in my mind, depend on how blatant a departure it is from their usual level of journalism. Do they ever show dudes modeling speedos? In other words, is it equal opportunity trash, or just one kind?

[ganesh]

It's not equal opportunity, but I do recall that SI covers women's sports (somewhat) when I read it. 

[attica]

I used to subscribe until last year, because they stopped bothering with any women's sports whatsoever. Even in the ever-expanding golf section, they never covered the women's tour.

[Victor the Crab]

I used to subscribe until last year, because they stopped bothering with any women's sports whatsoever. Even in the ever-expanding golf section, they never covered the women's tour.

 

AH, but they more than make up for the lack of women in their magazine with their swimsuit issue, amirite, AMIRITE?!!

8D (hides between the sofa and wall)

[attica]

The sad thing is, I bet that's the actual attitude there.

[Chaos Theory]

Women don't play sports.

[iMonrey]

 

RE governments altering packaging, I think it's analogous to saying: "We won't outright ban it, but you can't advertize it, either." It may be a strategic choice to say they don't want an underground illegal trade in cigarettes, but they don't want to make it easy, either. It's regulation. They can say you can't sell to children, you can't sell at schools, you can't have fancy packaging, we will tax it, you need to label ingredients... whatever terms they want. We have similar rules about various products in the USA.

 

But I see a distinction between running PSAs about the dangers of smoking and forcing that product to use off-putting packaging. There's also a hypocrisy in singling out cigarettes as opposed to alcohol or fattening foods. Imagine putting labels on liquor bottles and beer cans with big photos of diseased livers on them, or people puking their guts out. Or making McDonalds put a big poster of an overweight, pimply kid on their sign. It's a slippery slope. Either make the product illegal or don't. 

[Chaos Theory]

But I see a distinction between running PSAs about the dangers of smoking and forcing that product to use off-putting packaging. There's also a hypocrisy in singling out cigarettes as opposed to alcohol or fattening foods. Imagine putting labels on liquor bottles and beer cans with big photos of diseased livers on them, or people puking their guts out. Or making McDonalds put a big poster of an overweight, pimply kid on their sign. It's a slippery slope. Either make the product illegal or don't.

Again in this country it makes sense with what 90% of the population owning a television and seeing those creepy smoking PSAs....but what about the poor countries that can hardly afford to feed their children? Then some rich baron comes along in his nice clothing and offers you a pack of smokes and a basket of food. Hey it's what I'd do. Go door to door in the poorest of counties in my spiffiest outfit in my nicest car with a large basket of food and inside a carton or two of Marlboro Reds.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[trow125]

Boo hoo, Philip Morris is butthurt over LWT's piece.

[blueray]

I remember thinking 'gee, I'm stupid, I thought Uruguay had a coastline', and then, boom! I'm right after all. Thanks, Anthony Bourdain and your globe-hopping shows!

I was thinking isn't that Paragray? Then I started second guessing what I heard him say then he said that lol. I guess I spend to much time on google maps.

[Victor the Crab]

Boo hoo, Philip Morris is butthurt over LWT's piece.

 

Me likey! >:D

[iMonrey]

 

Again in this country it makes sense with what 90% of the population owning a television and seeing those creepy smoking PSAs....but what about the poor countries that can hardly afford to feed their children?

 

Then make the product illegal, period. And buy food instead of cigarettes.

[stillshimpy]

Then make the product illegal, period.

 

I don't think it's really quite that cut and dried or that that is a good answer. You're talking about taking away the choice by deeming something illegal.  Changing the packaging in countries where there is a substantial illiteracy rate is one of the few ways to make sure that people are making an informed choice. 

 

As for what Australia has done, that's the same thing: making sure that whatever choice a person makes is as informed as it can be.  Plus, they have compulsory voting, so they do actually have a slightly more socialized approach to several things.   

 

It's not comparable to liquor or fast food, as in moderation neither of those will harm you (well, depending on overall well-being beforehand).   There is no moderate amount of smoking that is deemed good for you.   Also, there has been a big push on to make Fast Food menus carry with it clearly displayed calorie counts.  

 

Eradicating choice by making something illegal isn't a good answer because government entities shouldn't be allowed to so fully make choices for their citizens.  Insisting that buyers are making informed choices, on any product, is a form of consumer protection.  

 

It was a good show, I thought.  

 

Also on the Sports Illustrated "how is this still a thing" swimsuit issue , yeah we're on the internet, which means we're never more than two or three clicks away from porn at any given time....but it's also not something is weirdly celebrated as being a marvelous thing.  Sports Illustrated is aimed at men.  That swimsuit issue is just rubber stamping objectifying women as some kind of grand tradition.  

 

At least Victoria's Secret is actually selling something to women, for women, even if their marketing is clearly designed for dudes. 

Edited February 19, 2015 by stillshimpy

[lion10]

Also on the Sports Illustrated "how is this still a thing" swimsuit issue , yeah we're on the internet, which means we're never more than two or three clicks away from porn at any given time....but it's also not something is weirdly celebrated as being a marvelous thing.  Sports Illustrated is aimed at men.  That swimsuit issue is just rubber stamping objectifying women as some kind of grand tradition.  

 

At least Victoria's Secret is actually selling something to women, for women, even if their marketing is clearly designed for dudes. 

 

How is it objectification or different than using models to sell clothing?  It's a choice to buy the magazine and more basic than that, straight guys happen to like looking at attractive women.  It's pretty harmless and if it sells, it sells.

[ganesh]

No, it's that they're marketing strategy is still in the 80s that's the "how is this still a thing?" Porn is everywhere and you can see mostly nude models everywhere. 

 

It's archaic and absurd. Why not feature actual athletes instead? There's actually both men's and women's professional soccer leagues, and a women's pro basketball league since the 80s, when this really started. Plus, *gasp* some guys wouldn't object to looking at other guys either.

 

The point is, why aren't they evolving and trying to adapt the concept of the swimsuit issue for a modern day audience? Wouldn't that possibly increase sales? Isn't that the point.

 

For example, NBC shows an ad for puma (I see it during english soccer games on saturday mornings). It's hilarious. It's soccer players, runners, golfers, men and women, each in a hot tub; i.e., half nude, with clips of their highlights. That strikes me as "modern". 

 

Lots of pro athletes are well known, even in the lesser sports. So it's not like it wouldn't be worthwhile. Who cares about models? I'd way rather see Alex Morgan ffs. 

[lion10]

No, it's that they're marketing strategy is still in the 80s that's the "how is this still a thing?" Porn is everywhere and you can see mostly nude models everywhere. 

 

It's archaic and absurd. Why not feature actual athletes instead? There's actually both men's and women's professional soccer leagues, and a women's pro basketball league since the 80s, when this really started. Plus, *gasp* some guys wouldn't object to looking at other guys either.

 

The point is, why aren't they evolving and trying to adapt the concept of the swimsuit issue for a modern day audience? Wouldn't that possibly increase sales? Isn't that the point.

 

For example, NBC shows an ad for puma (I see it during english soccer games on saturday mornings). It's hilarious. It's soccer players, runners, golfers, men and women, each in a hot tub; i.e., half nude, with clips of their highlights. That strikes me as "modern". 

 

Lots of pro athletes are well known, even in the lesser sports. So it's not like it wouldn't be worthwhile. Who cares about models? I'd way rather see Alex Morgan ffs. 

 

It's true pornography is much more accessible but apparently people just really like the Swimsuit edition.  Maybe it's the context and the relative high quality compared to porn.  Why did so many women go to see 50 Shades of Grey when they could look up endless amounts of porn specifically made for women?  Who knows?  I don't read Sports Illustrated at all, not even the Swimsuit edition, but based off of the data Last Week Tonight showed, it does massively boost sales.  Doesn't Sports Illustrated features athletes in all its other issues?  And for whatever reason, Sports Illustrated has decided to target the male market (of which 95%+ are straight) in the same way Cosmo and Elle target women and GQ targets men. Theoretically, they too could boost their sales by trying to appeal to the other half of the population.   So the reason why "it's still a thing" is money.  John Oliver would have more of a point if the Swimsuit Edition sales were barely better than regular issues.  

 

The tobacco bit was hilarious though.  This show is an excellent mix of humor and legitimate news.

[stillshimpy]

How is it objectification or different than using models to sell clothing?

 

Because when you're selling clothing by using attractive models, the goal would be to sell it to people who think "Oh wow, how fetching.  I'll wear that and look that good, right?"  There's a product involved that, one that isn't just a woman's body.   It's (sexual) objectification because it is encouraging men to buy something just to ogle women.  The only thing being sold is an opportunity to ogle women as the sum total of their body parts.  

 

It's different from using models to sell clothing, because they aren't actually selling something tangible other than the opportunity to leer at women.  In the actual piece John Oliver even refers to when they put Barbie on the cover as "Objectifying women by actually using an object."  They are sexually objectifying women.  

 

In the "why wouldn't they just watch porn?" of it all, you got me, but I would guess that there's a societal stigma attached to that as much as anything else (and wow, is porn ever objectifying women) whereas The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is still treated as some charming tradition, complete with media blitz.  It's an approved and validated form of objectifying women. 

 

Weirdly enough, it actually doesn't particularly bug me, and I do think that airbrushed and overly streamlined models do as much damage to healthy body images and gender relations as the SI Swimsuit crap, but I do get why "Wow, we still haven't evolved past the point of "look at her boobs!!!" and having it be treated as a grand tradition, to which we should all look forward?  Argh. We've come a long way baby...and we've got miles to go before we sleep." 

 

 

It's a choice to buy the magazine and more basic than that, straight guys happen to like looking at attractive women.  It's pretty harmless and if it sells, it sells.

 

Absolutely, we all enjoy looking at things of beauty, right?  But that is the problem with objectifying anything.  It's turning a human being, an individual with an intellect, hopes and dreams into something to be alluring to the eye...like an object...like a pretty vase. Like a thing that is there for someone else's pleasure.   It's depersonalizing. It's reductive.   As to what harm it does or doesn't do, well I personally don't think it carries a ton of harm with it any longer*, but it does contribute to a societal attitude about the standards for women's bodies in the real world. 

 

*it is the very thing that the women's movement had to overcome, that women were more than pretty faces, equal to men and capable of more than just being decorative or pleasing to the male gaze as a woman's primary role in this world.  

Edited February 20, 2015 by stillshimpy

[ganesh]

Maybe it's the context and the relative high quality compared to porn.

 

That's the thing. It's really not that high quality compared to porn, and not even compared to porn, to general nude modeling in like 50,000 other magazines. They're barely wearing anything. The segment was correct in that sense. You can see these women in partially nude if not nude photo shoots elsewhere. I guess the more apt question is how is this still a thing? Who are these people buying this? Because they're pretty much idiots. 

 

I'm fine with anyone that wants to pose nude, and if people want to pay you to do it, then good for you. 

[stillshimpy]

I'm fine with anyone that wants to pose nude, and if people want to pay you to do it, then good for you.

 

Which is a big part of the reason I'm not actually upset about the whole concept.  Yes, I think it is objectification.  Yeah, normally that's a bad thing, but I don't begrudge anyone making their living by posing in lingerie, swimsuits, nothing at all or hell....covered in mumus.  I think it was Rosie O'Donnell who said something like, "If I looked like that I'd be buck-naked in the frozen food aisle at the grocery store all the time 'hmmmm....what do I want to buy...' " and whereas I wouldn't take it that far, my mindset is more "good for you, you're beautiful, rock on and go for it".  

It's a deeply weird tradition though and it does harken back to a different time period.  I guess more than anything it's just funny that "wow, we'll buy anything if we're told it's a thing we're supposed to do" and it seems like we don't question traditions very much.  That's not unique to America though.  On Facebook I ended up signing a petition -- while feeling like I was through the Looking Glass because "seriously, it's 2014 (at that point) ....how the hell is this still going on?"  -- to stop an annual "punch a pig in the face" festival in Ireland.  

 

Now that one upset the living hell out of me, but the Sports Illustrated "a nation stands in line to drool over pictures of bikini clad women, because we are highly susceptible to marketing and consumer programming....maybe?" isn't the stuff of outrage for me, it's more the stuff of "Huh.  That is weird.  But what are you going to do?"  

Edited February 20, 2015 by stillshimpy

[attica]

Why not feature actual athletes instead?

 

This! I love the annual ESPN magazine's issue featuring pretty photos of naked athletes, both male and female. Even a 'solidly built' fella like Prince Fielder was: damn!

Edited February 20, 2015 by attica

[Hanahope]

Considering that the Swimsuit issue sells around 800,000 copies, compared to a 'normal' issue that sells 68,000, clearly the swimsuit issue is still a thing because it financially supports SI.  That one issue outsells the entirety of the rest of the year's issues.

 

I loved how John made it clear just how powerful these multi-national corporations have become.  They are controlling governments and countries. Doing pretty much what they want throughout most of the world and no one is opposing them. That PM specifically moved a portion of their headquarters to China solely for the purpose of being able to sue Australia for allegedly violating a trade agreement is just incredible.  I bet those lawyers earned a nice 6 figure bonus.

[ganesh]

I'd like to know who actually are these 800000 people buying the swimsuit issue. Because it's not like you can't see the pics online anyway. Surely, this has to be a fraction of their readership compared to the 80s. 

[stillshimpy]

Yet another reason that it is more of "Hmm. True." than "WTH?" on any level for me.  

 

It's print media.  It's going the way of the Dodo one way or another fairly soon, So in the "how is this still a thing?' category they focused on a tree in an ever-thinning forest, you know?   Yup, it's a little weird for all of the reasons stated here and elsewhere, but it's a magazine, which already makes it feel like Richard Attenborough ought to be observing its increasingly rare sightings and movements in hushed tones so as not to frighten it into oblivion anyway.  

[Slovenly Muse]

While the sexualization and objectification of women in the SI swimsuit issue is appalling and outdated, for all the reasons StillShimpy mentioned above, I think what makes it extra awful is how mainstream it is, and how much a part of our social culture it has become. Like those clips John showed of male reporters expressing excitement over the new issue. Because it's not porn, and it's from a basically-otherwise-reputable magazine, it gives men that kind of social permission to freely express delight over getting to ogle a new crop of heavily-photoshopped completely phony images of women. The objectification of women, judging them on their bodies, leering at them as nothing more than sex objects, is in this case a completely social exercise, even done without shame on news programs, the way actual porn could never be. And THAT'S what makes it so outdated. It's not just the magazine itself, but it's the (male) public's reception of the magazine. If men were on TV talking about how much they were looking forward to the new Victoria's Secret catalogue, it would be seen as creepy and gross, and yet somehow the rules are different for SI. It's not just the objectification that's the problem, it's the way that objectification is celebrated.

[KerleyQ]

I find any adult male who gets all excited about the Swimsuit Issue coming out like that to just be creepy and sad.  It reminds me of the creepy ass guys who used to come into the local drug store I worked at in high school and stand at the counter, pretending to count their change, check their receipt, or whatever to keep stealing glances at the Playboys and the like that were kept behind the counter.  

 

It's not just fan fiction. It is very, very BAD fan fiction. I consider it the worst written book in the history of language. Not to mention the hero is an abusive stalker and the heroine, supposedly a college graduate, seems to have an IQ hovering somewhere around 30. How this dreck ever became a success is one of the mysteries of the ages.

 

I haven't read the books, but I have read excerpts from various blogs, and, Lord, it's awful.  Really, really, dreadfully, high school English class first draft, awful. (And I may have been too hard on high school English class first drafts there...)  I will never understand the Twilight fascination in the first place, so the fact that some crappy fan fiction based on it has somehow become this big deal is just mind boggling.  I'm always slightly disappointed in my gender when the general female population swoons over shit like this.  We have to expect better, ladies. 

 

As for the movie, I heard someone describe it as "two hours of the stuff you fast forward when watching a porn movie."  This does not surprise me.  They were never going to make this movie truly "dirty."  They didn't want to risk the rating and damage profits.