Sorry I’m late to the party. Cam introduced me a couple days ago, but I ran into some technical difficulties before I could post. Got it figured out now.

Thanks to the guys for letting me, um, sit at the end of the bar and eavesdrop. I also want to attest to their cleverness– when they approached me with the offer to blog, they called me UNATTAINABLE GIRL. Seriously, who can say no to a title like that? They’re too kind. But, here am I, sittin’ at the bar, bein’ all unattainable.

Speaking of unattainable women (yes, that’s what we call a clumsy segue), I got a few in the mail the other day when my Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue arrived (yes, Unattainable Girl has a subscription).

Since y’all were on the subject of gorgeous women, I figured you might be interested in my thoughts. I’m no prude about the Swimsuit Issue. I think the girls are beautiful and the photography is stunning. But is it just this year that the Swimsuit Issue became the Swimsuit Bottoms Issue? Because there is nary a top in sight. Hey, wait! Where’s everyone going? I’m trying to have a conversation with you guys. No, Cam, the nearest newstand is miles away.

Anyway, yeah, not as many tops as I’ve remembered in the past. I’m guessing SI is feeling no small bit of pressure to up the ante thanks to the FHMs and Maxims of the world, but I hope it continues to keep it a bit classier than those magazines. I’m no prude about those, either, but the SI Swimsuit Issue is the grown-up of the group and should act like it.

There isn’t any nudity in SI, just a lot of crossed arms and the obligatory bodypainting of Heidi Klum (who looks great posing as a classic pin-up). Since I got the issue, I’ve been trying to decide how I feel about the whole thing. I’m not one to get all uppity about “objectification” because I think beautiful is beautiful and it’s natural to want to take a gander at beautiful, right? The pictures in SI are tasteful, often gorgeous, and not at all dehumanizing, in my estimation. Though I kind of have a gut feeling that I wish there were more bits of fabric involved, the overall product certainly doesn’t offend me.

I was also kind of encouraged by the fact that the SI cover featured an all-star reunion of swimsuit models, including Elle MacPherson (43 with two kids!), Rebecca Romijn (34), and Rachel Hunter (37 with two kids), all of whom have maintained their hottitude to astounding degrees, even if John Derbyshire would consider the bloom way off their roses.

I don’t really have a cohesive theory on this or anything. Those are just my gut feelings on the matter. I’ve never been one to let the whole “unrealistic standard of beauty” thing get me down. I’m fortunate that it doesn’t.

The way I see it, people like beautiful and they want to look at beautiful (both men and women), and we will never live in a world of redistributed attractiveness in which we are all made equal and receive according to our need. So, you either appreciate and admire the fact that some got more than you in that department or you feel really mopey about it. I’m gonna go with admiring because, judging by the way socialism generally works, redistributed attractiveness would just result in a whole world of equally mediocre-looking people. Not that I have anything at all against mediocre-looking people, but there’s nothing wrong with appreciating a little bit of beautiful to look at every now and then.

Cam: Whew. Glad to know you don’t have anything against mediocre-looking people.

Now, about the SI Swimsuit Issue. I think the last time I even glanced at that was when I was 16. I think the issue is actually kind of quaint in the day and age of hardcore porn on demand (or even when you’re not demanding it, depending on whether or not you use the wrong extension when trying to find the White House website). I do applaud SI for putting women in their 30’s and 40’s in the magazine, however. I’m sure Derbs found it disgusting that these “old ladies” were prancing around in their unmentionables, but I’ve never been one to think that by the time someone is 22 the bloom is off the rose.

Jim: Welcome, Unattainable Girl! It’s suddenly dawning on me how controversial the SI Swimsuit Issue used to be - in my house growing up, at the school library, at the public library, etc. Now seeing supermodels in bikinis, even with only their bottoms, is fairly blase, compared to the Maxim, FHM, etc. mags next to ‘em month after month. I can imagine the headaches this used to spur among teachers and librarians. It was a bizarre cultural phenomenon - if you ordered a subscription to an all-American, G-rated sports magazine, and one week out of the year, you got to see pictures of almost-naked beautiful women. It was kind of like ordering a subscription to National Geographic and finding then-very controversial pictures of topless women in some far-off tribe.

“Quaint” and “tasteful” are accurate for the SI swimsuit issue; I wonder how their sales are holding up in a world where you can see many women wearing much less (or more, depending on your tastes) anytime, almost anywhere.

Oh, and two shots at John Derbyshire, fellow National Review employee. I made a mild rebuke on TKS after his infamous comments; I’ll refrain from taking another shot today.

Marshall: First of all, did it somehow escape everyone’s attention that Unattainable Girl subcribes to Sports Illustrated?!

As to the issue — ahem — at hand, I have to agree with Jim. Magazines like Maxim and FHM have become mainstream reading. Indeed, last evening, I was perusing my new copy of Vanity Fair and discovered a celebrity pictorial in the back with full-on nudity. (No distracting crossed arms or anything like that.) Perhaps we, as culture, are becoming less concerned with nudity and sexuality — more European in our sensibilities. (And now, Marshall wades dangerously into the weeds of pseudo-thoughtful curiosity.) I wonder if this indicates a secularization of our culture and society the way it has in Europe. Or, is this a classic red state / blue state divide? In other words, are folks in Nebraska put off by Maxim and the new Vanity Fair? Certainly the sales figures, particularly of the former, seem to suggest that’s not the case. (Marshall realizes how far he has waded into the weeds and decides to shut up before he goes any farther.)

Cam: So Unattainable Girl reads Sports Illustrated, and Marshall reads Vanity Fair. The next step is for Jim to admit to reading Cosmo.

I’m trying to think of what magazines I read on a regular basis. Blender (which tops Rolling Stone as a music magazine, in my opinion). Wired (which keeps me somewhat in the loop on technology). Uhh… guess I should say National Review (but when Jim’s got an article in it, I buy ten extra copies. Put him in the magazine more often!). That’s about it. I find that by the time the magazines hit the newsstands, the information contained within is already so dated it’s almost worthless.

By the way, it’s very cool that U.G. reads Sports Illustrated. Wonder if she’s a baseball fan.