( CNN ) On Wednesday night , Jimmy Fallon opened `` The Tonight Show '' with a big reveal : a first look at the cover of this year 's Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue , featuring model Hannah Davis , and quite a lot of her at that . The ultra-revealing cover shows Davis pulling down her already-minuscule bikini bottoms to within a millimeter of an area typically reserved for intimate partners and gynecologists . She 's been waxed , it is evident , to bald perfection . One wrong breath , and she 'd expose actual labia ( how 's that for newsstand-appropriate ? ) Of course , Sports Illustrated 's annual swimsuit spectacular has never been without controversy . It 's almost intended for controversy . Last year 's cover featured three topless models , although they faced away from the camera . Supermodel Kate Upton 's 2012 cover featured her in similarly barely there bikini bottoms . Putting aside the fact that a woman is more likely to end up on the cover of Sports Illustrated for her ability to look amazing in a bikini than for her accomplishments as an athlete -- and indeed few press mentions of Davis ' cover have noted that she is a former tennis champion , while few have omitted the fact that she is Derek Jeter 's girlfriend -- it 's possible to consider the notion that the issue 's purpose is to celebrate the female form , with a side of swimwear . I 'm not opposed to celebrating beauty , especially when a woman works hard to achieve and maintain it . The idea of `` if you have it , use it '' is OK by me , even if the beauty the swimsuit issue tends to show off is a very specific sort of beauty . ( Indeed , perhaps the biggest disappointment is that Davis ' headline-generating cover overshadows what truly is a positive step for female empowerment : the issue 's first-ever inclusion of a plus-size model , Robyn Lawley , and in a bikini of her own design , no less . But you 're hearing far less about that . ) This year , though , Sports Illustrated has gone too far . In the photo , Davis eager pulls down her bikini bottom and thrusts forward her pelvis in a way that 's clearly meant to draw the eye to that very spot between her legs -- far more so than her eyes , or even her breasts . It 's an invitation to picture her naked , and more . And in case there was any ambiguity of what the image is supposed to evoke , there 's the clever cover line that begins : `` Hannah Davis Goes Down South . ... `` It is explicitly explicit , and as such impossible not to view it as intending to reduce women to billboards and sex objects . Claiming to portray Davis this way in the name of `` celebrating the female form '' is a lie balder than her nether region . Plus-size models give SI 's swimsuit edition more curves . After all , if the point is n't to objectify women for the pleasure of the male gaze , why has no one created a counterpart magazine featuring a scantily dressed man ? Why are men so rarely offered up as objects to behold ? Men are n't the only ones who like to `` appreciate the beauty '' of the opposite sex . If the point is n't to objectify women , and subvert them in some way , then why is n't there a similar model for men ? Instead , most examples of men gracing magazine covers with their bodies on display are for men 's magazines , with a male readership . Why is it normal to `` celebrate the female form '' but not the male one ? Maybe that 's next . But it 's highly doubtful . The only thing remaining that could be more shocking than this year 's cover image would be if the magazine decided next year to run a cover of a supermodel in a ( gasp ! ) one-piece swimsuit . Risqué indeed !
Peggy Drexler : SI swimsuit edition cover baldly about reducing women to sex objects . Drexler asks why is there no heralded magazine cover showing a man . Why is it only normal to `` celebrate the female form '' ? she asks .