Earlier this week I got my annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition in the mail. I looked at the front and back covers and decided I’d had my fill. (That Green M&M sure is looking hot.)
I’m not going to be one of those gals who bitches that such things objectify women and are out of touch with today’s values. If an attractive gal wants to pursue tugging at her bikini strings to make a little cash, that is certainly her decision to make and not mine.
Alls I’m saying is where’s my swimsuit edition, SI? How hard would it be to put a couple of baseball players in Speedos? Yes, I know we got the Phelps cover a few months back — and that was good. Very, very good. But the theme of nearly naked hot dudes did not continue past the front cover.
Gipped, I say.
(I’m also still holding it against you, SI, the fact that your gift for subscribing was an XXL NFL fleece.)
Yeah, I need some dudes in swimsuits. Maybe not, like, Manny Ramirez, but some lookers.
Definitely not Manny! Ugh!
Maybe Jacoby Ellsbury…
Amen, sista. For some reason, certain media outlets still pervade the notion that only men like sports. While we’re at it, why not put some attractive dudes on the sidelines next to the cheerleaders?
You know how they give you the option of not recieving the swimsuit issue and getting an extra week on your subscription instead (and if you don’t know this, you haven’t been paying attention)?
I finally did that this year. And boy am I glad. I subscribe to SI for the sports writing.
OK you asked for it
click on my name to see some awesome guys
in swimwear!
Yuck…speedos. What about nice, sensible trunks instead?
NPW: Yes, the lookers only.
Mickey: The trick is remembering to do that. I’ll add it to my to-do list.
Michael: I don’t know who you are, but I’m not clicking on your link because I’m afraid of what I might find.
Em: Yeah, you’re right. I really don’t have a thing for speedos. I’ll take boxer briefs or sensible trunks any day of the week.