In case you didn’t know, Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue came out last week. It arrived in my mailbox on Thursday, and I was not very happy.

The only good thing I can say about this year’s swimsuit issue is that at least a few of the models are actually pictured swimming. The bad news? It is the most offensive swimsuit issue I’ve seen in my few years as a subscriber. Great. All the guys will really want to run out and snag a copy now. Please, I beg you, don’t buy the piece of crap.

I counted 11 pictures of topless models and eight pictures of women who were apparently removing half of their swimsuits. Evidently, many of these women were about to relieve themselves and forgot the camera was there. Other pictures are purely tasteless. Laetitia Casta seats herself on the end of some sort of rake or hoe, while Rebecca Romun appears to be taking her top off for a member of the Maasai tribe in Kenya.

What is the point of a weathergirls feature? Do I need to see meteorologists in short skirts? Does forecasting the weather have anything to do with sports? Would SI ever do a feature on weatherboys? I think not.

SI did make some attempt to include men in the issue. Readers can feast their eyes on sports figures Daryl Johnston, Herschel Walker, Wayne Gretzky, Dan Majerle, Reggie Miller, Denny Neagle and Phil Mickelson, and their scantily-clad wives. I just don’t understand why Wayne Gretzky is fully clothed while his wife sports a two-piece and heels. Why isn’t there a picture of, say, Sheryl Swoopes in a business suit and her husband in a Speedo?

Sports Illustrated demonstrates almost no respect for women. Swimsuit issues aside, how many times do you think a female appears on the cover of SI? Well, I happened to have 26 consecutive issues of SI lying around, and exactly two women graced a cover.

Not only has SI lacked sufficient coverage of women’s sports over the years, it also has objectified and degraded women in every swimsuit issue. The issue has nothing to do with swimming. If it is supposed to sell swimsuits, why do so many of the models only have one half of a suit on their bodies? SI’s swimsuit edition basically provides pornography (i.e., pictures intended to arouse sexual desire) for men, and everyone knows that is its aim. Don’t try to sell it as a sports magazine.

I don’t like the swimsuit issue, and I don’t want my name in the subscriber box on the cover. Therefore, I figure I have two possible courses of action. I can write a letter to the editor and express my displeasure, or I can cancel my subscription. Somehow I don’t think one letter from me will convince anyone to quit running the swimsuit issue.

So cancel the subscription, you say. Well, I have one little problem. It’s called cognitive dissonance. I don’t want to stop receiving the regular issues of SI. I like reading about sports, and in particular, I like the features about the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan. I am torn because I feel uncomfortable knowing that I pay for a magazine that objectifies women. Yet, I don’t want to give up the magazine, so I try to resolve my inner conflict.

How do I accomplish this feat? In the same manner that I manage to idolize Michael Jordan. As you all know, he gets a certain amount of money from Nike, a company that has been accused of some bad things. Nike supposedly overworks and underpays a lot of factory employees. However, I like Nike shoes and apparel, so I tell myself that Michael is not to blame. He is only human.

I’m sure Jordan practices a little denial, as well. Surely, he believes the reports that conclude Nike is doing no wrong. I bet he doesn’t pay much attention to the studies that find otherwise.

I can’t control the choices Jordan or anyone else makes, but I will let my Sports Illustrated subscription run out this year. Do me a favor and leave the swimsuit issue on the newsstand. Better yet, throw it in the trash where it belongs.

Catherine Conover is a senior in liberal studies from Mapleton.