“For those of you who follow SI Covers, know that female athletes are RARELY featured on the cover.”

Really? There aren’t too many men on the cover of Playboy either. Profitable organizations cater to the demographic that supports them. Of course women are not often featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated. I hate to break it to you but women’s sports are not even remotely as profitable as men’s sports. It’s not because of discimination or chauvanism. It’s because men are better athletes, their sporting events are more interesting to watch and – most importantly of all – men are by and large the demographic that have the most interest in watching sports in the first place. The National Organization for Women aren’t buying Sports Illustrated in massive numbers. If you don’t like it, read Vanity Fair.

Lindsey Vonn’s a big girl. She has the freedom to make her own decisions. If she wants to appear on the cover of a magazine and pose provocatively, that’s her business. I hope she makes millions. Personally, I don’t see how this pose is provocative. This is what skiers look like when they ski down the mountain – even the men. But if she were to appear on the cover of Hustler with her shirt off and a beer in her hand, more power to her. I’d definitely buy it.

I like this comment: “she also represents (the) norm of feminine attractiveness.” Attractiveness by nature is going to be exclusive. Whether it’s fat girls, thin girls, white girls, black girls or 11 foot blue babes with long tails and dreadlocks, someone’s getting left out. There has to be some norm. Why shouldn’t it be Lindsey Vonn? All of this feminist “objectification” BS comes from un-attractive women who are disappointed that they are not sex symbols and envious of those who are. Besides, it cuts both ways. Are we going to pretend that McDreamy and McSteamy are not objectifying nicknames for fictional male characters created soley for their sex appeal to women? Sports is entertainment and that’s one entertaining cover.