Your swimsuit edition was disgusting, despicable, diabolical, demoniac pornography—to say the least. There's trouble in America!
THE REV. PHILODORE H. LEMAY, M.S.
I am livid! Seething! If we had wanted to subscribe to a girlie magazine, we would have. Those scantily clad dollies gracing your pages in provocative swimwear have no place in your magazine. When our children, ages 12 and 15, asked that they receive SI as a Christmas gift, I had no idea we would be in store for this stuff. Frankly, it stinks—and to think that your magazine is regularly read at our high school library. You owe a lot of people an apology for the inclusion of such irrelevant material in what is supposed to be a serious sports publication. Any more of it, and our subscription will be canceled!
ELLEN M. SHIPTENKO
I threw my son's copy in the trash can. Why not stick to covering sports with a healthy approach?
SALLY S. HORNER
I suppose I will be pegged as a prude, a puritan and a bit petty, but I must speak out on my anger and disappointment over the "girlie" issue. Your centerfold spreads of Christie Brinkley et al. have absolutely nothing to do with the fine art of competitive sports. Obscene magazines are plentiful, and I hadn't considered that in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED I'd be in for another barrage of nudity. I personally hope this will be the last "fashion" issue wherein models display postures, poses and physiques in such a way as to make it difficult for the reader to know exactly what is being advertised.
Garden City Church of Christ
I am not an old square, but I do enjoy putting your magazine in my waiting room. If I wanted pictures like that, I would subscribe to Penthouse, Hustler, etc. Please clean up your act.
M.R. HAIG, M.D.
Port Arthur, Texas
The Feb. 9 issue of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED illustrated more than sports! I, along with principals of other schools, found it very objectionable material to put in a school library. The pictures of the "bathing beauties" have no conceivable connection with the purpose of the magazine—sports reporting—and serve little other purpose than sexual stimulation. The use of these photographs was exploitative and put women in a demeaning role.
Last year's swimsuit issue raised eyebrows; this year's raises serious questions regarding your magazine's worth. Please cancel our subscription and refund any balance due.
SISTER MARION RAFFERTY, RSM
St. Teresa of Avila School
As the mother of six children, including three boys, I would like to express my opinion concerning your annual bathing-suit issue. I have subscribed to SI since 1965 and have yet to find anything lewd or distasteful. I have also read with amusement the annual rebuttals and outcries against pornography, godlessness and SI's contribution to the sexual depravity of our youth, etc. These pious protesters would probably be surprised to find out just how many of their children are hiding in a closet, flashlight in hand, scanning the pages of Hustler or Penthouse.
The young women in your swimsuit issue have consistently been healthy specimens of nature's astute handiwork, so who can complain? The jealous? As usual, we enjoyed it.
GAYLE TOY DEARIEN
Being concerned Florida citizens and aware of the "Trouble in Paradise" reported in your Feb. 9 issue by Robert H. Boyle and Rose Mary Mechem, we found it a devastating experience to see Carol Alt lying among the sea oats on Shell Island. And to see the seeds of this important vegetation in her mouth was equally appalling. This simple fruit is vital to the ecology of the sand dunes in our beautiful state. Picking sea oats or trampling them (by lying on them) is in fact a violation of state law. Had any of us been present during this action, a citizen's arrest would certainly have been our response.