Another sign of the Apocalypse for sure. First we had The Scorpions doing soft rock. Now we have National Geographic doing 100 years of swimsuits. What in Hades is going on here? The cover of this oversize magazine shows more cleavage than recognizable logo. What’s next? Scientific American’s “The Girl’s of Biology?” Or is going to be “Let’s Play Doctor” in JAMA?
This is nothing short of ridiculous. I’d like to know one thing. How much page space does this National Geographic give to hunky men in skimpy Speedo’s? The partially submerged girl on the cover, with her two strategically placed seashells, was straight out of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition. It’s really difficult to imagine they’re not pandering to the usual frat boy crowd.
Is anyone else out there disturbed by this? Scientific American has been reduced to the level of People magazine with its rampant adverts and dropouts. Now another cherished icon of science goes the route of tabloid journalism. I’m no prude, but this is just plain wacky!
Ain’t the market grand?
Really, integrity only pays so much of the rent. And as to the cover girl with her two strategically placed seashells, well, God Bless Her, I hope she did not catch a cold :)(and, hey, the current schtick in SI is to make it clear part of the swimsuit is coming off or is not there at all!)
But you noticed now? That was last month’s issue (The current one is the one making a big, BIG BIG um, splash, down here, Whoooo boy are there gonna be some cancellations…).
Nat Geo picked its best photos over the past 100 years that involved swimsuits or swimming, none of which I found tasteless or raunchy. I think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek answer to the kinds of “swimsuit issues” you’re thinking about.
But as this subscriber understands it, the swimsuit issue was not included - but required a special order at additional cost! Grumble, grumble!
Saw the SI issue yesterday for the first time. Seems like there is some quality control problem with those bikini bottoms. Those side strings keep untying. And are the models pulling down the bottoms to demonstrate their elasticity?
I love Natty Geo and picked up this issue when I saw it on the newsstand. It’s more sociological than exploitational, with a tongue-in-cheek presentation as described by tsarina. If I remember correctly, taken as a complete collection of photography, there’s more naked guy ass than bare boobies.
Well, ya know… Each magazine will seek to its lowest level! For example, People was once more newsy than gossip. Now, it’s a step about National Enquirer. Thus, National Geography (and perhaps Scientific American) had to sink down a notch or two.
Well, even the mountains shall crumble to the sea…
