Sports Illustrated Strippers
Sports Illustrated Strippers
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   02.21.18
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Aly Raisman, former Olympic gymnast and one of the many victims of serial abuser Larry Nassar, offered this troubling defense of her appearance the in Sports Illustrated (SI) soft-core porn “swimsuit” issue wearing nothing but dumb slogans written on her body:

Women do not have to be modest to be respected–Live for you!… The time when women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies is OVER.

She’s right. Women don’t “have to be modest to be respected.” We should respect humans because they’re human. But not all behavioral choices should be respected. Choosing to be immodest—like appearing nude in a men’s magazine—is a choice that ought not be respected.

I’m not quite sure what Raisman means in tacking on the words “Live for you” to her first statement. I guess she lives to be immodest.

Modesty is not synonymous with shame. Modesty in this context means “regard for decency of behavior or dress.” Shame refers to “the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper etc.”

Modesty is a virtue to be cultivated, and women should feel shame over stripping for SI. (Men too should feel shame for stripping, but we’re discussing female SI strippers.)

I’m not sure who Raisman thinks is teaching women to be ashamed of their bodies, but I’ll tell you who I think is: advertisers, the modeling industry, women’s magazines, pornography, and the soft-core porn issue of Sports Illustrated—all of which depict images of a very narrow segment of the female population. They depict young, beautiful, well-proportioned women with dewy, flawless skin—you know, like Aly Raisman.

Raisman and other strippers shouldn’t feel ashamed of their bodies. They should feel ashamed of choosing to expose their bodies to the public for the sexual pleasure of strangers.

Journalist Britt Henry offered this tepid criticism of the SI stripper issue:

Why does a woman have to pose nude to feel “empowered”? Isn’t it more empowering to keep your clothes on, go into an office or classroom like everyone else and excel? 

In response to Henry, former pro-golfer Paige Spiranac defended stripping for SI:

Different women feel empowered in different ways and it’s not right to tell someone what they can and cannot do.

Didn’t Spiranac just tell Henry what she ought not do? What if Henry feels empowered by criticizing stripping?

And what about women who feel empowered by starving or cutting themselves? What about women who feel empowered by being naked at public pools? What about women who feel empowered by their sexual relationship with their brothers or fathers?

(BTW, Henry did not tell anyone what they “can and cannot do.” She asked questions that implied stripping isn’t a good thing to do.)

What SI strippers are saying is that there should be no moral evaluation of any action they autonomously choose. No questions asked about whether stripping is a moral act or not. No questions about whether stripping contributes to the objectification of women or encourages male lust. No questions about whether strippers serve as good role models for young girls. No questions about whether stripping for SI contributes to women feeling ashamed of their average, imperfect bodies. Nope, all that’s permitted in response to purportedly autonomous choices is affirmation.

Empowerment seems to mean nothing more than “I feel good.” These strippers probably don’t want anyone to ask why they feel good about exposing their bodies to strangers who use those images to engage in onanistic activity. And they surely don’t want anyone to suggest it’s shameful to facilitate the poisoning of the minds and hearts of boys and men.

As porn of the soft- and hard-core varieties proliferates, young men who began being exposed to porn starting in middle school are finding themselves unable to perform sexually with real women, and marriages are being destroyed. The “autonomous” choices of “empowered” women to be immodest for money play a part in this mess. And for that, they should feel shame.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Laurie Higgins
Laurie Higgins was the Illinois Family Institute’s Cultural Affairs Writer in the fall of 2008 through early 2023. Prior to working for the IFI, Laurie worked full-time for eight years in Deerfield High School’s writing center in Deerfield, Illinois. Her cultural commentaries have been carried on a number of pro-family websites nationally and internationally, and Laurie has appeared on numerous radio programs across the country. In addition, Laurie has spoken at the Council for National Policy and educational conferences sponsored by the Constitutional Coalition. She has been married to her husband for forty-four years, and they have four grown children...
Related Articles
Nauseating Performative Acts by Celebrity Racists
Nauseating Performative Acts by Celebrity Racists
IFI Featured Video
Stop Doctor-Assisted Suicide in Illinois
Get Our New App!