Letters

It's too bad SI hasn't found a way to print the swimsuit issue upside down, so all the world could see these women as you do—hanging by their feet, no longer human beings, merely sides of beef that appeal to men's basest appetites. And how interesting that your 1992 version should be published just a few weeks after you expressed shock about Mike Tyson 's actions toward a teenage beauty contestant, who, it should be noted, is most often pictured wearing a swimsuit. God save us from hypocrites such as you.
MARK AZZARA
Danbury , Conn.

To me the attention paid to other women in this issue—25 pages' worth, a noticeable amount compared with a regular issue of SI—came off as a blatant attempt to balance the 38 pages devoted to the swimsuit models. It is sad to think that bullfighter Cristina Sanchez, zookeeper Sharon Matola et al. probably would not have received the exposure they did (no pun intended) if they were not featured in this, your shallowest issue. For you to think that these features would pacify those who find the swimsuit layout offensive underestimates your readers and insults those women who truly deserve to be heralded in your magazine for doing something more than putting on a swimsuit and posing.
KATIE MARTIN
Crockett , Calif.

Again, a Shot of Shana
I watched HBO 's Official Swimsuit Video and was filled with awe at the sight of the sensational Shana Zadrick, but I was disappointed to see only one photo of her in the swimsuit issue. Please do me and any of your readers who may have missed the video the favor of giving us one more glimpse of Shana.
JAMES E. BRAGG
New York City

?Our pleasure.—ED.