Sports Illustrated: Guilty of Child Pornography?
george spelvin
On page 131 of the February 10, 1986 issue of Sports Illustrated, a string bikinied woman takes an outdoor shower with a boy wearing swimming trunks. On page 114 of the March 9, 1992 issue, a similarly-clad woman competes with Spanish children in an annual sports event.
These photographs, and photographs like these in the annual swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated, sparked a protest from Chapel Hill, NC psychiatrist Linnea Smith. According to Smith, the magazine “[sexualized] children by juxtaposing them with female models featured only for their sexual desirability and ’easy access’ to all consumers.” In capitulation to Dr. Smith’s protest, the swimsuit issue went unigenerational in 1993.
Smith made a reasonable assumption, since it has long been the tradition for producers of pornography and erotica, whether for woman-lovers, man-lovers, or child-lovers, to present models of the preferred age/gender category exclusively.
At first glance, this may seem like the logical policy for such producers. After all, no space is wasted on models in which the intended viewer has less interest. But could this be a mistake on the part of producers of pornography and erotica? Perhaps there is sex appeal in depicting models in relation with persons of other age/gender categories.
For example, maybe there is sex appeal in depicting women in relation with children--which is exactly what Sports Illustrated seems to have done on an experimental basis. Sex-typed male adults may be reluctant to admit this, but male heterosexuality has origins in the paternal instinct. It is no accident that men prefer women with hourglass figures. In Sex and the Brain, Jo Durden-Smith&Diane deSimone tell us that large hips imply that the woman can easily give birth to an infant and large breasts imply that the woman can adequately feed an infant.
Smith may have a stronger case when it comes to page 176 of the Special February, 1989 issue. On this page, we see a dorsal view of Christie Brinkley, standing topless on the beach, turning her head and smiling at the viewer “while daughter Alexa, 3, goes for minimal coverage” and clings to her mother’s right leg, also smiling at the viewer. Smith would probably ask me why Alexa is posed nude if it is not to render Alexa sexually desirable.
Although I consider a nude child worthy of more respect than Alexa gets in this punny caption, I contend that the publishers intend for her nudity to convey a parental rather than sexual message. If German biologist Konrad Lorenz is correct, nothing can enhance the neotenous effect of a child like a cute round face and a cute round bottom, and Alexa affords an ample view of both. (In Lorenz’ opinion, children have evolved toward glutinous buttocks since this gives them a soft cushion for adults carrying children. This might explain why barebottomed baby pictures are considered cute.)
Although both models smile at the viewer, Alexa’s clinging pose makes it obvious that no relation with the viewer is going to threaten her bond with her mother. Her message seems to be that adults who enjoy wholesome activity with children are welcome to associate with her and her mother, while molesters are welcome to try their luck elsewhere.
Christie has her arms tucked under her breasts. On the surface, this may seem like a signal of modesty. But if my analysis is correct, this could be a dual message that her breasts are presented for the viewer’s admiration but reserved for Alexa’s nourishment.
So do children look sexier in conjunction with women, as Linnea Smith contends? Or do women look sexier in conjunction with children, as I contend? This question would be difficult to answer in the laboratory. We could hook up male subjects with a phallometer and show them children only, women only, and both. Then we could measure how they react to each stimulus. Their greatest response may be, we will not know whether they are responding to the women or the children.
Even if the effect of this intergenerational beach photography is proven, that does not prove anything regarding the motives of the SI editorial staff. Until someone breaks into their office and steals their motivational research, we can only speculate.
