OT: Halima Aden Becomes Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue's First Hijab-Wearing
Papi_Chulo
Miami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
b) trying to be too PC?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/life…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
b) trying to be too PC?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/life…
113 comments
Latest
SJG
and Papi, pretty women, but unless there's some really thin wet burkas in there......
It’s a business decision, nothing more.
Every business decision carries with it a message..and if it serves a positive political message, then what is wrong with that.
I also agree with the others that say her outfits don't belong in an American magazine swimsuit issue but the bottom line is it doesn't really matter to me what they choose to do because they won't get any of my money. All in all I've never been that impressed with any of the SI swimsuit issues I've seen and I won't be thumbing through that issue.
But put a hijabi girl on the cover and it is a 100% guarantee that people will talk about the Swimsuit issue. I usually use “brilliant” as a joke but this really is brilliant marketing.
Think about it: “woke” people will go buy it because it is PC. Grouchy old guys will buy it because they hear about it and like girls in bikinis. Islamophobes will buy it and secretly jack off to hijabi girl. Some will decide afterward that maintaining the secret is too much and post instagrams of hijabi girl with their jizz on her. Most guys who actually freak out about hijabi girl were never going to buy the magazine anyway.
Normal guys will just be remided the issue is out and buy it. Some of those guys will jack it, but most will probably jack off to the actual bikini girls.
Next year I bet they’re going to bring hijabi girl back but show her in body-painted burka! (Ok, that would be stupid, but only because a burqa covers the face except the eyes and body painting the face would be non-brilliant, but I stand by my prediction of a girl wearing a hijab and nothing else just to generate buzz!)
Business decision, nothing more, nothing less! ;)
And Skibum says" Accomodating people is beyond pathetic. Its a swimsuit edition not a fucking religious gard edition. More progressive stupidity."
So you claim that accomodating the disabled is wrong, freedom of religion is wrong, accepting and allowing all groups that make America up, equal access to cultural institutions is wrong. The motto of the US is Epluribus Unum....out of many, one....
I can make a statement too and mine is not political..... I'm not paying for a swimsuit magazine where the women are not in what I consider swimsuits
meanwhile his tagline is "Need a new main bitch"
and the problem here isn't the girl in SI. Its your reactions to it
There’s no problem here, SI is free to print whatever and we are free to not buy whatever.
For the record you’ve expressed some truly bigoted and misogynistic sentiments on your own totally unprovoked.
You misrepresent intentionally thinking that will give you an upper hand, but it doesn’t work on me and at the end of the day I’m still a happy guy and you’re still a sad miserable troll.
25, When you decide to speak up against the Islamophobia in this thread.... talk then. But as is, you're just supporting it.
Focusing on halima being used as a financial pawn is insignifcant- a corporation exists solely to maximize profit, u are just stating the obvious
.however, while the purpose of cover is to draw attention, an equally important purpose is show what u want to be represented as(there's a reason why vogue doesn't put naked women on the cover) .
thus, putting hijabi on cover at least shows that they at least could value the idea of hijabi being hot. If not, where is the data to show that Sports illustrated is losing profit and reputation to support claim that they only want to attract attention?
Even if it is only attracting attention, putting her on cover increase representation of hijabi in top magazine which does certainly help with tolerance of diverse ppl, and what's wrong with saying "hey, we accept u too? "
Nicole, they don't care about SI's business decisions nor statements... they're just trying to justify their anger at a practicing Muslim woman being featured in the magazine, coz they're Islamophobes.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain
You support Islamophobia, police brutality, racism, xenophobia, etc.... Opposing such views is a civic duty.
I think the question is..
Why would they include pictures of a lady wearing a burka in the Swimsuit edition?
They're celebrating a woman challenging and changing our cultural beliefs on beauty.
The article OP posted delves into SI's reasoning. If you don't understand it, perhaps you need to work on your English language comprehension.
And, sure, it's a stunt to some degree. But it's an effective one, because you're all talking about it. And pretty much anyone who is outraged will have moved on to their next outrage (or 10...) within a month and barely even remember this.
It's important to note that SI wouldn't do this if their market research indicated that they'd lose enough readers to matter.
Anywho, I wouldn't mind if she converts and starts wearing conventional Western swimsuits.
No it is not...I was discussing the postive, negative, political , and economic ramifications of the corporation's decision, of which were discussed by you all before my comments .
"I think the question is..Why would they include pictures of a lady wearing a burka in the Swimsuit edition?"
That should not be the question, because I have already answered it.
To answer it again, questions about the cover must obviously take into account the purpose that a cover serves, one of which most obviously to portray an image.
Thus, it can be argued that SI put her on the cover for two reasons. It put her on the cover as doing so would not result in financial loss, and because doing so is consistent with what they value and/or how they want to be perceived (as welcoming towards hijabi women )
No it is not...I was discussing the postive, negative, political , and economic ramifications of the corporation's decision of which were discussed by you all before my comments .
"I think the question is..Why would they include pictures of a lady wearing a burka in the Swimsuit edition?"
That should not be the question, because I have already answered it.
To answer it again, questions about the cover must obviously take into account the purpose that a cover serves, one of which is clearly to portray a certain image.
It can be argued that SI put her on the cover for two reasons. It put her on the cover as doing so would not result in financial loss, and because doing so is consistent with what they value and/or how they want to be perceived (as welcoming towards hijabi women )
^ as opposed to what? Yes I create my own threads why do that if I was answering someone's exact question rather than articulating my thoughts independent of a request to do so.
Here it is for your benefit
>Silly or not she’s still an absolutely gorgeous woman.<
You said "that made me laugh "
That's all.
20fag said "that made me laugh "
That's all.
I only buy Sports Illustrated is when one of my teams wins the championship.
I don't even like SI.com since Peter King stopped writing MMQB and left for NBCSports.com (which I don't like either).
She's an attractive women but I'm not buying the magazine not because of the message they may or may not try to send but because I don't by the swimsuit edition regardless of who is on the cover.
Regardless, putting fatties and burkinis in the swimsuit issue are the dumbest ideas ever. I miss Marissa Miller, Irina Shayk, Cindy Crawford, Kathy Ireland. Marissa Miller may be the hottest woman I have ever seen. She was my phone and computer screen background for a looooong time.
So go ahead call me all the names you want to, I don't care what you think or say because you are just irrelevant
But its just another example of how out of touch with American reality you are.
The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is supposed to be sexy. Its supposed to be tasteful sexiness that doesn't quite fall into the category of porn but is still sexy. The PC left doesn't like girls being "sexualized" though so they whine about it which makes the Sports Illustrated company try harder to make it less obvious that that is what its about.
A woman being featured in a hijab shows that she disagrees with the fundamental premise of a girl being featured in a bikini for men to be aroused by. Because of that, she really should have just not signed up for this or the company should not have tried to recruit someone for this because it doesn't make sense.
Its a clear move by a company who's magazine is not intended to pander to PC leftists to pander to the PC left anyway and that's what is actually frustrating people. There's other magazines out there I'm sure where featuring a woman in a hijab makes much more sense.
I'm a product of the generation that grew up with free online porn everywhere when I was not even old enough to be masturbating yet. While I do think some teenage boys think "hardcore is better." I personally don't like and have never liked hardcore porn very much. I'd much rather fap to a simple, tasteful picture of a girl in a bikini than "thirsty little slut cucks her husband and gets her tight pussy DESTROYED by BIG BLACK THROBBING COCK!"
This is actually a major reason why I strongly prefer lesbian porn. I can't stand how rough and degrading a lot of mainstream porn is. It puts me off and makes me feel weirded out. Most of the time though, lesbian porn is sensual and often times kind of cute. When lesbian porn gets lustful it looks like real passion. This isn't always the case, I've seen some lesbian porn that freaked me out too but most of it is pretty tasteful.
Anyway though, my point is that a lot of people seem to assume that if a more extreme version of something is out there that that's what people will want. That's not always true, I'm sure there's quite a few people out there like myself that are more turned on by sensual and erotic imagery than by extreme content.
They didn't used to like that stuff though. They only started liking it when porn taught them that they should like it. Honestly, for all the talk that there is about porn affecting young men's perceptions of negatively, I think porn has had more of a negative impact on how young women look at sex than it has on guys. I think its because of the idea that porn is mostly made for men, but a lot of girls still watch it and after watching it think "okay so that's what guys like in a girl." Which basically means that porn has convinced girls that guys just want a fuck machine. Most guys don't actually want their girlfriend to act like a pornstar though.
I don't like the direction our society is heading in. Just a couple days ago, I was watching a show that had a gory violent scene involving a woman getting impaled with a bayonet, writhing in pain, and somebody in the comments was talking about how much the scene aroused him. Then another person basically went "yo wtf" and another person responded with the typical progressive bullshit of "everybody has different fetishes and things they're turned on by, don't judge people for that as long as they're not harming anybody."
Well here's the thing. That statement would sense if we were talking about foot fetishes or food play." It does not fucking apply though to a person getting turned on seeing a woman writhing in pain and getting stabbed to death with a bayonet. That clearly crosses the line into, yes, you are fucking hurting people with your actions. So stop using progressive bullshit to justify the fact that you fundamentally are aroused by seeing a woman in pain and that is fucking disgusting. But because of the popularity of "moral relativism" nowadays, you can't tell anybody that what they're doing is wrong. At first it made sense but now people are using that ideology to justify things that really are immoral by giving a standard "morality is subjective" reasoning.
When we've gotten to the point where we're justifying somebody getting turned on by seeing somebody in pain, we've gone way too fucking far. We should have never reached this point but somehow we did. People are so determined to justify each and every fetish out there that we're comfortable with people making disgustingly sadistic statements as long as its in the context of sexual pleasure. What people need to understand is that "consent" is the only thing holding these people back from being serial killers. Consent reduces the harm but it does not eliminate it. What's creating more harm than anything though is our idea that consent somehow removes the moral value of the action. Somebody who is operating under that assumption may torture their partner dozens of times and get away with it whereas somebody who doesn't have consent may only torture somebody once or twice and then get thrown in jail. Somebody who is turned on by pain is turned on by pain, their subconscious mind doesn't recognize "consent" only their conscious mind recognizes it so that they can get away with expressing that desire without being thrown in jail for the rest of their life.
S&M literally stands for "Sadism and Masochism." The fact that our perverted society has started viewing fucking sadism as some kind of fun sexual quirk makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.
Women aren't in pain during rough sex, they love the feeling, And most love the point where they can't tell pleasure from pain.
I'm talking about sex, not sick shit like stabbing people with a bayonet.
When I first started having sex, I was confused at first, I was afraid I was hurting them....like one girl who screamed when I fucked her hard up the ass, you know what she did when I took my dick out? reached back to put it in and asked me to cum in her. Or the number of girls who said they loved choking on my dick.... The last stripper I fucked, very cute and kinda innocent looking 18 year old. Wanted me to beat her pussy....
Its not torture or violence, its women craving to submit to masculine men. Its just biology.