Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition Catches Up With Reality

Sports+Illustrated+features+its+first+plus+sized+model%2C+Ashley+Graham%2C+on+the+cover+of+the+Swimsuit+edition.+

via facebook.com

Sports Illustrated features its first plus sized model, Ashley Graham, on the cover of the Swimsuit edition.

Nikolas Castelao, Staff Writer

Every year, the famed publication Sports Illustrated puts out a special issue jam-packed with sensual photos of models and female athletes, known as the Swimsuit Edition. The tradition began in January of 1964, and half a century later, its popularity has by no means diminished. This year three women have claimed the prestige of being the cover models: MMA fighter Ronda Rousey, model Hailey Clauson and Ashley Graham, a decision that sparked a controversial debate. Graham has been the topic of an ongoing debate over the role of plus size models in the modeling industry, and Sports Illustrated has received much backlash for its decision to feature Graham on the cover of the Swimsuit Edition.

Ashley Graham has a Body Mass Index of 25.1. Having a BMI of over 25 is considered overweight and over 30 marks the threshold of obesity. Although BMI is a highly flawed indication of one’s health, Ashley is nowhere near being obese. Cheryl Tiegs says that women must have a waistline measure of under 35 in order to be considered healthy, a flawed assertion, but even so Graham is listed as having a 30 inch waist. Her supposedly “excess” weight actually comes from her ample hips and bust which both measure more than 40 inches, thus giving her an “hourglass” figure. To put all of this into perspective, at my peak level of fitness I had a BMI of 27.7 and a 32 inch waist; according to my BMI, I was well overweight. But my biometrics were exceptional and I was running half-marathon distances as regular workouts.

But the issue isn’t whether Graham’s weight makes her unhealthy, but our collective obsession over the term plus-sized in modeling and whether this is a move by Sports Illustrated to be “inclusive.” I would argue both yes and no.

Graham makes a statement in personifying beauty and health outside of the mass-produced iconographies of models built in the mold of Kate Upton, Kathy Ireland and Cindy Crawford. Women of every shape and size should be able to see someone on a magazine cover who isn’t carefully photoshopped but rather someone who looks someone who looks closer to the average body type. It is laudable that a publication that has carried the Promethean torch of our culture’s perception of beauty has finally allowed someone who is slightly rounder than most models to grace its cover.

On the other hand, if Graham is considered more “normal” looking than most models, then the phrase plus-sized is out of place. By labeling models as “plus-sized” and declaring the “plus-size can be beautiful,” Sports Illustrated is perpetuating the myth that size and beauty are mutually exclusive. Using phrases such as full-bodied or big and beautiful is a wolf in sheep’s clothing — people’s bodies are not meant to be commercialized, and that commercialization should not have the ability to determine what type of bodies are seen as attractive.

H&M recently released a catalogue with full-sized women casually placed in between regular-sized women and did not make a spectacle of it. We should strive for this nonchalant diversity. It is an intermingling of bodies in a wide range of shapes and sizes, bodies that you would see on the street.

I am happy for Ashley Graham and how far she has come in an industry, that, by nature, immediately judges her for her body. However, I am unhappy that she has been forced into being the physical manifestation of a metaphorical argument between what matters more — vanity of the body or well-being of the body.

Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.

Email Nikolas Castelao at [email protected].