This issue was nothing more than smut. If we had wanted that sort of thing, there are numerous girlie magazines we could have purchased. We don't patronize such things; we don't have cable TV and we don't go to R-rat-ed movies, because we choose not to. However, you have taken that choice away by sending us this week's edition of SI as part of our subscription. If you plan to continue on this course, we would appreciate being so informed, at which time we will promptly cancel our subscription.
How awful that we can't trust anyone in these times. The magazine was quickly disposed of. We were going to mail it back to you. However, we didn't want it to be available for any further viewing.
THE ART COLLIN FAMILY
I'm returning the cover and inside pages of your "swimsuit" feature. I'm disappointed, appalled and downright angered by them. My teen-age daughter was given a gift subscription to SI because of her—and our entire family's—interest in sports, not in sexploitation. We all agree this was out of place and distasteful and degrades what we thought was a decent magazine. Are you that hard up to sell more issues? Any more of this and we'll find another sports publication.
ALICE M. PRALL
I thought SI was a sports magazine, not a girlie magazine. We were very disappointed with the Feb. 14 edition. We love and enjoy reading SI in our home. Please tell Jule Campbell and Walter Iooss Jr. that if they want to attract their readers' attention, they should do more articles on athletes who have kicked drugs or been born again. We read your magazine to learn more about sports, not to see the kind of filth we can see on the newsstand all the time. Our young people need more good things to look up to and less sex to mess up their minds. Believe me, your magazine is tops without it.
I thoroughly read and enjoy your magazine each week—except one. Scantily clad women are not "illustrated sports." Your swimsuit issue came out of the mailbox and went straight into the garbage can.
DANIEL J. FORTE
I realize that your swimsuit issue is a tradition. However, I subscribe to this magazine to encourage our grade school boys to read and become interested in sports. Each year I watch for this issue and remove it from our magazine rack. Our school faculty finds it extremely offensive and considers it inappropriate for our students.
Thus, if you cannot assure us that such pictures will not appear in the future, you may cancel our subscription and refund the money. I hope you will cooperate in our goal of educating moral citizens for a world that is sadly lacking in this essential area.
SISTER SARA KOCH, O.P.
St. Malachy School
Again this year I firmly object to your swimsuit edition and, in effect, condemn it with the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (6:7-8): "Make no mistake about it, no one makes a fool of God! A man will reap only what he sows. If he sows in the field of the flesh, he will reap a harvest of corruption; but if his seed-ground is the spirit, he will reap everlasting life." These inspired words speak for themselves.
THE REV. PHILODORE H. LEMAY, M.S.
No doubt your latest swimsuit issue will inspire angry tirades and canceled subscriptions from various religious individuals. However, a quite different reaction to viewing such beauty is found in the Babylonian Talmud, in which it is related that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was standing on a step of the Temple in Jerusalem when he saw a particularly beautiful woman. His reaction was to exclaim, "How great are Thy works, O Lord!" (Psalms 104:24). To that I can only add one word: Amen!
RABBI DANIEL L. PERNICK
Another year, another swimsuit issue. Where are the men models? Come on, I'm dying to see Jim Palmer in a sexy, suggestive swimsuit. I've been reading SI for more than 10 years and I'm sure the percentage of women readers has climbed during that time. Don't we merit at least an insert?
MERLE L. MYERSON
New York City