The Weird Case of the Invisible Vagina a.k.a. Sports Illustrated 2016 Cover
You know, I know Photoshop is used extensively to remodel women’s bodies, but I draw the line at removing a woman’s vagina. Well, I draw lots of lines on Photoshop usage, but with the new Sports Illustrated Cover, the model’s vagina is completely missing. Why have her pull down her pants for a ridiculous peek-a-boo at an invisible vagina? Wouldn’t everyone be so much more satisfied if there were real vaginas out there? Even Barbie had a vagina, and she was plastic! Can there be anything more misogynistic than removing a woman’s vagina completely to make her more marketable? Creep factor: 1000
So the model says something like how proud her mom will be, but how does one broach this? “Hello, Mom, just wanted to tell you that I am, in fact, a sexy beast, as determined by Sports Illustrated. That is the good news. The bad news? Well, they had to remove my vagina to make me a sexy beast. Hope that’s not offensive…”
“No, are you sure?” the 25-year-old asked at the time, looking shocked. “I’m shaking, seriously this is a dream come true. I told my mom there was no way I’d get the cover, I told her, ‘They do beaches for covers and I’m on a farm. There’s no way. It’s not possible.'”
Us Weekly called the photo “super sexy,” but how is sex for this model even possible without her vagina? I just don’t understand, either, why shaving a woman’s pubic hair to make her look prepubescent is sexy. Removing her vagina? That’s just plain scary. Sorry, Mom, the dream has come true, and I am now without a vagina. Not necessary part for a woman, right? Well, not according to Sports Illustrated who has now set the standard for female beauty that requires women to not have a vagina. Talk about an impossible standard to match.