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.


What a fascinating website. Thank you so much for being UN PC and sharing all this eye opening info.
Im going to spread your site link far and wide to other women and men out there who need an education on the fashion industry.

To me, Yesica Toscanini seems to have a less masuline face than Anita Dark. Her cheekbones are the highest on the site, giving her the looks of a transvestite that has had a nose job and plucks their eyebrows too much.

You have a very interesting website, but your central idea seems to be that porn stars (gee, excuse me, "glamour models") represent what women "should" look like. Like if anyone doesn't have a tiny waist, full boobs, and a shapely butt, they are a broken, masculinized, eunuch-looking freako.

I don't want to get into a big argument or anything, so let me just say that I disagree. Women come in all shapes, sizes, and hormone levels. For a better example of "normal women", please avoid the porn stars and look at the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty.

C.M.S.: Anita Dark isn’t very feminine, but she is more feminine than Yesica, and although she is 31 now and about 11 years older than Yesica, she still looks overall better than Yesica. Matched for age, Yesica would be no match for Anita -- from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. Finding pictures of Anita Dark when she was around 20 is not an easy task, but as the following comparison shows, a 20- to 21-year-old Anita Dark was much more feminine-looking than Yesica in her late teens.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark

The following pictures of Yesica Toscanini show her masculinized facial features, and she is going to look much manlier ten years from now.

Yesica Toscanini

The following pictures of a younger Anita Dark show facial features unambiguously more feminine than those of Yesica.

Anita Perger, Anita Dark, Shelby Kane

Just a quick thought from a male point of view….

Sure, runway models are not representative of the average woman….never have been, never will be. Why?

Although it sounds far more sensational to blame the ‘homosexual fashion industry’ and their predilection towards young boys, the truth is simply this – It’s a marketing strategy, and a damn successful one, at that.

Think of it like this – a fashion company, like most other companies, is in business to sell something.

In order to sell something, you have to create demand. Enter the ‘fashion model’.

She possesses uncommon features, unrealistic proportions, and unattainable status….basically, she’s nothing like the average woman. She’s skinnier, prettier, taller, more refined, more glamorous…. Everything that an average woman wants to be, she IS, and much more.

So when that ‘model’ wears a certain kind of clothes, or is seen in a certain pair of shoes…it doesn’t take a marketing genius to predict what the average woman does in this situation… she buys the same clothes and shoes. It’s a simple and powerful marketing principle – we tend to emulate those who we perceive to be superior.

I’m not condoning, approving, or defending…just info.

On a more personal note, I’m a heterosexual male, and I’ve always been partial to very petite/slender women. Just because a woman isn’t spilling out of a huge bra and shaking a big ass doesn’t mean she isn’t sexy or desirable. I’d take the skinny waif over the buxom blonde any day.

CT: I am well aware of the Dove campaign and have thought about addressing it at this site; I might do so now that you have mentioned it. Dove is addressing a different problem than the one I am addressing. Dove is addressing the body image problem whereas I am addressing the aesthetics problem. My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive. If this were realized, the body image problem that a number of girls and young women experience will remain, though it would be of a different kind, but they will at least not be prompted to indulge in negative health behaviors such as unnecessary dieting and excessive exercise in order to acquire the physique of the feminine models since dieting and exercise are not going to make one look feminine and attractive.

This site is not about how women should look like; it is about aesthetics and the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. Regarding the glamour models shown, many of them do not engage in sexual activities on camera and are thereby best not referred to as porn stars. Hence, the generic label of glamour model is reasonable. Besides, a number of glamour models/porn stars are not feminine and attractive, i.e., it is far from the case that I think that women/models should look like glamour models/porn stars. If this site were successful in the long run, then there will be plenty of mainstream models to choose from when it comes to illustrating what feminine and attractive looks in women are about.

Jon: You may prefer a slender woman, but if you are a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man, it is unlikely that you find broad shoulders and other masculinized skeletal features -- disproportionately seen in high-fashion models -- attractive in women.

I have addressed your notion elsewhere. The majority of women assign higher aesthetic appeal to above average feminine looks in women, and most people, including most young women, find the typical skinniness of high-fashion models socially unacceptable. Therefore, there is nothing marketable about the typical looks of high-fashion models. If unattainability of appearance is a criterion, then as I have explained toward the bottom of the "skinny fashion models" page, a tall and feminine appearance with a healthy amount of body fat is less attainable than tall, masculine and skinny looks. It is simply the case that gays dominate the top ranks of the fashion business and have a broad license as to what kind of models they can use given the high desirability for designer clothing. Gay fashion designers select looks they find appealing, the central tendency of which is to approximate the looks of adolescent boys.

"My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive."

You should realize, then, that "attractive" is PURELY an opinion. Most heterosexual men that /I/ know do NOT like "feminine" women, as you define it. I know there are men out there that like "feminine" women, but you don't need to be pushing this shit like it's fact that if a woman isn't "feminine" she's ugly and/or a eunuch.

Tany: What constitutes attractiveness is far from mere opinion when broad agreement in the general population has been amply documented (see FAQ). Nowhere have I said that unfeminine women are ugly or eunuchoid. The masculine women shown on this page are not ugly, but some do not have the faces of women. Besides, I do not know how you have managed to come across heterosexual men who do not appreciate feminine curves.

What on Earth is wrong with you? Your FAQ page pretty much states that if a man prefers "masculine" looks, he either A) is gay, or B) has something wrong with him mentally. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a man may *gasp* find something attractive that you, personally, do not? A man doesn't need to have something wrong with him mentally [or be homosexual] for him to have a different opinion on women.

There have been SEVERAL instances on your site where you've referred to women with "masculine" features as eunuchs.

In your FAQ, you also state you are attempting to "[increase] the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants." which leads one to presume you truly believe non-feminine = unnatractive.

Even if the entire population of this country thinks "feminine" looks on females are more attractive, it is still, and always will be, an opinion. It may be an opinion shared by a vast group of people, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

"This site also intends to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general."
Like they don't have ENOUGH high standards to meet? I think the last thing models [that are usually intended to attract WOMEN to buy the clothing, by the way] is a man putting more ridiculous "standards" that he believes all women should meet because he believes anyone who goes against his opinion is wrong.

Tany: Nothing is wrong with me, but something is wrong with your reading comprehension. I have not said that a man who prefers masculinized looks in women is either gay or mentally abnormal. Gays are not the only people who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals; the latter group includes bisexuals, too, and most people falling into this category mostly lean toward heterosexuality in adulthood. Men who like masculinized women are obvious candidates for either not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals or having narrowly missed nonheterosexuality. The citations about increased psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals associate a preference for masculinized looks in women with brain abnormalities. This association is of a statistical nature and is not guaranteed. I have specified that whereas every single incidence of a preference for masculinized features in women cannot be called abnormal, given the association of the latter with mental abnormality, this preference is appropriately designated anomalous and is abnormal in a number of cases.

Some women with masculinized features do indeed look like eunuchs, and I don’t see why you have a problem with calling a spade a spade.

As far as unfeminine equating to unattractive goes, there is a threshold of masculinization beyond which most if not all people will find the woman unattractive. This threshold is not the same for all people, but for most people, high-fashion models cross this threshold, on average.

If the aesthetic preference of the majority for women with above average femininity is a mere opinion, then it is an opinion just like the sky looking blue in the daytime to most people is a mere opinion.

As far as the promotion of high aesthetic standards goes, this is only for models, not for all women as you have stated, and there is nothing ridiculous about feminine standards. Most women, like most men, aesthetically prefer feminine looks in women, and one should not be deluded into believing that the looks of high-fashion models are selected taking into consideration that they will be catering to female clients. Anyway, this entry is about a publication that caters to heterosexual men, yet features mostly masculinized women.

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.

To me, this website seems to have been written by a bunch of closed-minded boys. This site is just as bad as those trashy gossip magazines and the fashion industry promoting thin bodies and dieting. People are all different and everybody has different tastes. I know many of my male friends find Kate Moss, for example, extremely sexy and attractive, others prefer more rounded figures. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You say many times "a model should be feminine and attractive." Women shouldn't have to be anything. This entire website is written from an incredibly shallow point of view. There is so much pressure for women to conform to so-called 'ideals' and seeing yet another website about 'perfection' in a woman makes me very angry.

Helen: The nature of this site does not reflect closed-mindedness but heterosexuality instead. I was born with a liking for feminine beauty; I just can’t help it. Whereas not all people have the same tastes, there is broad agreement in the general population when it comes to what constitutes physical attractiveness, and this site reflects the broad consensus, as per numerous studies cited elsewhere within this site.

If you read carefully, you will note that this site is not about how women in general are supposed to look like. This site is partly about how models and beauty pageant contestants should look like in situations where masculinized women are not required. This entry focuses on a publication targeting heterosexual men, and it is appropriate that the choice of models therein reflect the central tendency of aesthetic preferences among heterosexual men.

I don't get the point of this site either...
Women buy the clothes high-fashion models wear and men buy porn with big boobed bimbos. (It doesn't seem like men are paying much attention to the faces there, because... wow, there's alot of ugly going on. But neither can anyone remember the faces of 90% of the runway models. It is about the clothes.) Everyone's happy. And most women in pageants are just butterfaces. It's always like the runner up is the prettier one.

Bree: Read the comments thread carefully and also the FAQ page to better understand the purpose of this site. The main purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty. For instance, you have acknowledged that most participants in beauty contests have unimpressive faces and less attractive women often outcompete more attractive women. On the other hand, when you observe top sporting events or nominations for the Nobel Prize in science, the candidates are drawn from the best people available and the winners are the very best among the outstanding. Similarly, beauty pageants should be about the most beautiful women and the highest aesthetic standards. There is a lot more to this site; just go through it.

Besides, everyone is far from happy. To address two issues relevant to this site, the aesthetic preferences of homosexual fashion designers create problems; read the eating disorders page; and when mainstream publications targeting heterosexual men, such as the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue, and even beauty pageants feature mostly masculine women, how can heterosexual men well-aware of the nature of feminine beauty be happy?

Replacing one beauty ideal with another won't help selfconcious girls. I don't think heterosexual men have any more right to dictate what the perfect woman should look like than gay men. Action against eating disorders promoted by a prevalence of very skinny women in the media would be to allow women of very different (healthy) shapes model clothes (reflecting the actual bandwidth of bodyshape in the female population). I would appreciate that.
The other problem... you just can't make me believe any man is unhappy because the naked chick in playboy has a somewhat broader ribcage. I also don't think porn needs to be "mainstream". There are lots of magazines and webpages out there catering to specific prefernces. Heterosexual men liking masculinized women "because they don't know any better" is not a problem. It's not like they'd shun a feminine woman when they have a chance with one. Nobody gets hurt.

Bree: Most men and women share the same idea about what looks good in women, namely feminine beauty. Therefore, this site is not about establishing a new feminine beauty ideal, but about the reasonable expectation that there should be at least one mainstream outlet for the appreciation of feminine beauty since this is the what most people hold as the ideal for women.

No one here is talking about mainstreaming pornography; pornography cannot be mainstreamed; to talk about a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation is to talk about the establishment of a big publication along the lines of the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue or a prominent beauty pageant where the women are feminine and attractive. In order to be mainstream, this outlet has to avoid nudity.