You are here

The 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue

Drop-dead gorgeous women?

2006 Sports Illustrated Swmsuit issue cover models.

Fig 1. Shown from left: Elsa Benitez, Veronica Varekova, Elle MacPherson, Rebecca Romijn, Rachel Hunter, Daniella Pestova, Yamila Diaz-Rahi, Carolyn Murphy.

Of the 8 women shown above, except Elsa Benitez, the others have excessive facial masculinization.  If all the 7 masculinized women were in their twenties, except Daniela Pestova, the others would still have excessive facial masculinization.  Additionally, at the time this photo was taken, Rachel Hunter, Yamila-Diaz Rahi, Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn had the faces of male transvestites.

The more interesting point is that the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is oriented toward heterosexual men, and it sells briskly, which underscores the need for this site.  If the masses of heterosexual men knew any better, they would seek alternative publications for pictures of attractive women.

There is no need to discuss the looks of Elsa Benitez and a young Daniella Pestova; the masculine looks of Veronica Varekova and Carolyn Murphy have been addressed on the “sexy fashion models?” page; the manly appearances of Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn have been addressed elsewhere; and the remaining two women are addressed below.

If one were just shown pictures of the face of Rachel Hunter for the first time, it would be obvious that one were looking at a male transvestite, and it would come as a great surprise that the photos are of a woman (Fig 2).

Rachel Hunter

Fig 2. Rachel Hunter; contrary to first impression, the person shown is a woman; click for larger image.

Playboy paid Rachel Hunter over a million dollars to pose topless, hoping to capitalize on her fame, but as the following thumbnail collage shows, it had to go through great lengths -- convoluted posing -- to conceal the unfeminine physique of Rachel Hunter (Fig 3), something that can hardly be helped by even large breast implants (Fig 4).

Rachel Hunter nude in Playboy

Fig 3. A thumbnail collage of Rachel Hunter’s nude pictures in Playboy magazine; small versions of the pictures are available at gorilla mask; see Playboy online for larger samples.

Rachel Hunter nude in Playboy

Fig 4. It is surprising that Playboy came so close to revealing the flattened backside of Rachel Hunter.

The facial features of Yamila Diaz-Rahi are shown in the next picture.  Given her face, one couldn’t be blamed if one were prompted to search whether Yamila is a male-to-female transsexual, but Yamila does not have a manly physique and appears to be a biological woman with an eunuch’s face.

Yamila Diaz-Rahi

Fig 5. Yamila Diaz-Rahi.

Now, it could be pointed out that the focus in a swimsuit issue is not on the face, but on the body, and hence standards could be relaxed for the face.  However, relaxed standards should still translate to a woman’s face rather than that of a man’s (Fig 6).

Molly Sims

Fig 6. Molly Sims in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue; is this person a woman?

On the other hand, if indeed the focus in a swimsuit issue should be on the body, then what standards should be met if heterosexual men are the target?  It is obvious what types of physiques would be necessary here and the kind of response they should elicit (Figures 7-9).

Nikita Laska from DDgirls.

Fig 7. Nikita Laska from DDgirls.

Dasha from Model flats.

Fig 8. Dasha from model flats.

Luciana Vendramini

Fig 9. Luciana Vendramini in Brazilian Playboy (Dec 2003).

So, did the models in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue meet the physique standards?  Obviously, none of the big-eight except Elsa Benitez came close.  But what about the others?  Consider some samples below.

First up is Anne Vyalitsyna compared with Shay Laren (Fig 10).  Anne Vyalitsyna has a masculine face, whereas Shay Laren has a feminine though unimpressive face, which is not a problem because the focus is on the physique.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren

Fig 10. Anne Vyalitsyna (left) and Shay Laren.

Among the somewhat masculine women in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, Anne Vyalitsyna's physique is among the best looking ones, but between her physique and that of Shay Laren, which is likely to make lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men go "Dammmn!!!"?.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren; big breasts

Fig 11. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren; large breasts

Fig 12. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.

Next, we compare Brooklyn Decker with Corinna.  Corinna obviously has finer and more feminine facial features, and a more impressive physique.

Brooklyn Decker and Corinna from Femjoy

Fig 13. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.

Brooklyn Decker and Corinna from Femjoy

Fig 14. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.

Next, the manly Mallory Snyder is compared to a more feminine glamour model.

Mallory Snyder

Fig 15. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated.

Mallory Snyder and Pamela from Femjoy; large breasts

Fig 16. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated (left) and Pamela from Femjoy.

If Mallory Snyder were to pose like Pamela below, would her physique look anywhere as good from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men?

Pamela from Femjoy; big breasts

Fig 17. Pamela from Femjoy.

Next, Daniella Sarahyba is compared to a glamour model. Compare the robust and masculine face of Daniella with the fine and feminine face of Courtney Jenson.

Daniella Sarahyba and Courtney Jenson from Courtney's camera.

Fig 18. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney Jenson from Courtney's camera.

How many lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will find the physique of Daniella pleasing?

Daniella Sarahyba and Courtney from Courtney's camera; large breasts.

Fig 19. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney from Courtney's camera.

Next up is Yesica Toscanini; note her robust and masculinized face.  Yesica is compared to Miss Budapest 1994, Anita Perger, more commonly known as Anita Dark.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark

Fig 20. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark; big breasts

Fig 21. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.

The full list of the swimsuit models, along with their pictures, in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue can be found here.  Only a minority of these women are feminine, which is typical of the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.  If heterosexual men are the target audience, then the appropriate choices among the models chosen for the 2006 issue would be Elsa Benitez, Petra Nemcova, Pania Rose and Maria Sharapova, i.e., 4 of the 26 women chosen.  It may be pointed out that Maria Sharapova is not feminine, but given her Tennis-star status, her looks and the general looks of top-ranked female Tennis players, it would be patently foolish for Sport Illustrated to not include her.  On the other hand, the physiques of these four women are not the kind that would make heterosexual men drool. 

Sports Illustrated is obviously in a position to seek and select feminine and very attractive models, but no such thing is seen.  In this regard, it is not clear whether the editorial team behind the production of the annual swimsuit issue comprises of a number of homosexuals who, mindful of the heterosexual male target audience, throw in a handful of feminine women and use posing tricks to make the others look as feminine as possible or if the editors are heterosexual but largely clueless about aesthetics and swayed by what the fashion world promotes as attractive, i.e., masculine looks in women, which are preferred by gay fashion designers.

Nevertheless, the annual swimsuit issue sells well, and its sales can be attributed to the advertising power of Sports Illustrated and male heterosexual buyers who simply do not know any better.  As to why a number of heterosexual men do not know any better, the answer is partly obvious in the sourcing of the glamour models on this page from adult-oriented sites.  The domination of the fashion business by male homosexuals is so extensive that feminine and attractive women who refuse to pose nude or to deal with the casting couch remain virtually unknown.  Because of the sleazy nature of most websites depicting nudity and/or sexual activity, the models featured therein are rarely able to go mainstream.  Additionally, most heterosexual men have better things to do with their time than to peruse adult-oriented sites for pictures of attractive women.  Besides, random searches for pictures of very attractive women on the internet will result in successes that are few and far between.  Therefore, there are few commonly encountered sources that would hone the aesthetic sense of heterosexual men at-large, and it should not be surprising if a number of heterosexual men lap up the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.  This scenario does not bode well for the promotion of feminine beauty, but then this site will hopefully improve the situation and force Sports Illustrated to select more feminine models.  Indeed, heterosexual men well-informed about the aesthetics of the female form will not bother perusing a magazine known to feature mostly masculinized women.


If anyone knows anything about human embryology, anatomy and physiology and linguistic psychology, three facts rise to the surface.

1) Before cell specialization In utero, there is virtually no difference between males and females. After cell specialization, there is a 2% difference in form, but not in function-which brings us to...

2) We are all pretty much the alike, with varying degrees of sameness. Men have glans, women have clitorises, men have a penile shaft, women have a vaginal canal, men have testicles, women have ovaries, men have nipples, women have nipples etc. etc. etc.

3) The language used by the author Erik in this article, points to the fact that he is most likely closeted and misogynistic. It's all there in word choice, placement and repetition - an example-

Erik states to commenter Tany,
"Look at it this way. If homosexuals want to have magazines, fashion shows and beauty pageants featuring masculinized women, including women who look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals and eunuchs, they can very well have these things, but there should be at least one prominent mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated for those who are enamored by feminine beauty. There is no such thing at present, and this is the reason why this educational site is needed.

These are the definitive words of a person who has over analysed women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty, looking for a reason, an explanation for his own inability to attract or be attracted to women.

That's a standard PC psychoanalysis.

Anyone who has anything negative to say about homosexuals (no matter how much evidence is supplied - from peer reviewed journals) is hiding his homosexuality behind 'homophobia' (an invented word).

Similarly, anyone who dares to question the supposed beauty of fashion models (and offers genuinely more feminine - and more attractive - alternatives) is a misogynist.

You effectively make the point that since in utero the differences between male and female is (apparently) small.

This is entirely irrelevant to the whole point of the site.

The issue is not about 'over analyz(ing)' women. It is specifically aimed at demonstrating that high fashion models are not true reflections of 'feminine beauty' - due primarily to the tastes of the homosexuals that dominate high end fashion.

As to your statement re: "women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty", this is a strange thing to say given the near uniformity of masculinized women ("androgynous; boyish; manly") featured in the fashion industry.

Perhaps one can psychoanalyze you based upon your statement. Given your claim that "[men and women] are all pretty much alike" perhaps you are closeted?

I thought of this site again the other day when I saw a Victoria's Secret catalog. The model on the cover didn't have a particularly high ratio of hip to waist width, but there was something about the shape of her hips and lower abdomen that was really hot. A male's hips would absolutely never look like that, but I can't explain why. By the standards of this site a truly-heterosexual man wouldn't take a second look at her.

Presumably there are what this site considers to be truly-heterosexual men, but they can never be a large percentage of the heterosexual male population. If they were, they would miss out on most of their opportunities to reproduce. They would all be competing for women who are exaggeratedly feminine in every dimorphic trait, while men who respond to the more subtle variants would correctly recognize the other 90% of women.

In fact, the Victoria's Secret model wouldn't be anywhere near so hot if she had an exaggerated ratio of hips to waist. She would still be instantly recognizable as a biologically suitable potential sex partner, but she wouldn't have that je-ne-sais-quois that most men actually use to recognize female body traits.

My guess about the author's sexuality is that he's not a closet gay. Instead, he's being honest about what he finds attractive. However, I would guess that he does have unacknowledged worries about his sexual orientation precisely because there are so many really hot women that he isn't particularly attracted to. Maybe he didn't think of the explanation I believe to be correct. Maybe he has some good reason not to believe it, that I haven't thought of. Or maybe, when a woman does nothing for him but other men say she's hot, it's just more satisfying to vindicate his own sexuality by throwing the implicit accusation of dishonesty back at them.

All of the women in the 2006 Swimsuit issue are beautiful and exude feminine sexuality. If I asked my husband if Rachael Hunter looked manly he would burst out laughing. Every heterosexual man that I know drool over the swimsuit issue (and it is not because they are brainwashed by the media). There is no one type of ideal women proportion that woman are born with as there is no ideal that the male is born with. Many work out to fit that 'ideal'. I have seen enough men with large 'behinds' as I've seen women with small 'behinds'. An individual's level of femininity and masculinity comes from the mind. You cannot create total gender sexual appeal via body parts only.

Looking at the SI Swimsuit Issue and Playboy I find that the women while being very pretty are not well built. Bony hips flat buts and poses obviously designed to accent what they lack physically to give the illusion of a curvy figure. And consider adult websites very curvy and voluptuous an many cases. I think the writer on this site has a point. It seams that the main stream fashion industry focus on thin non curvy women. If it were not for the breast and long hair they could pass for young boys. With that being said IMO the most attractive female body type for most heterosexual males lies between the runway model and the super curvy women on most adult sites.

"With that being said IMO the most attractive female body type for most heterosexual males lies between the runway model and the super curvy women on most adult sites."

And you would be heavily mistaken Tony. Your own wording betrays you misguided theory. "Super curvy women" are what the majority of 10% heterosexual men find most attractive.

You are confusing your own tastes with that of most straight men.

This site is what Lombroso would have done had Internet been available at the time, and had he been interested in writing about beauty instead of criminal tendencies. You are entirely free to like one phenotype of woman over another, but trying to pass your personal taste as some kind of science seems totally retarded.

I completely agree with you. The author of this article clearly has ridiculous distorted views and I'm not really sure what the whole point of this site is, other than to express jealousy towards beautiful, highly successful women.


Click here to post a new comment