Victoria's Secret Is Crazy to Shun Kate Upton

on February 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Kate Upton on Sports Illustrated Everyone, everywhere is buzzing about 19-year-old model Kate Upton after checking out her goodies on the cover of the esteemed 2012 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. I'm not just talking about those skeevy guys who hang around your office water cooler, either. I'm talking more big time here, like the honchos over at Victoria's Secret.

Apparently some bigwig that works for Vicki's, Sophia Neophitou, spoke with someone at The New York Times about how they'd never feature her in their annual Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. Neophitou said Kate's look is "too obvious" and "she looks like a footballer's wife, with the too-blond hair and that kind of face that anyone with enough money can go out and buy."

Eeeeeeeesh. Sure, being on the cover of SI opens a girl up for criticism, but that's a bit harsh. What's this fun-loving, Dougie-doing model ever done to you? What's hilarious? Kate's actually been IN the Vicki's catalogue!

Clearly, Vicki's is a bit confused. Kate's got it goin' on.

More from The Stir: Get Kate Upton's Look -- Even If You Aren't a Swimsuit Model

So what if Upton's got that all-American look going for her? There's absolutely no denying that the girl is drop-dead gorgeous aside from the fact that Upton's rockin' a piece of dental floss for a bikini bottom, Kate looks pretty amazing on the SI cover. She's got the kind of dirty blonde hair brunettes dream of, piercing eyes, and toned arms that don't scream "all I do is work out." In fact, I adore that the people at Sports Illustrated chose a woman to represent their brand that has some real curves and isn't stick thin. Upton's voluptuous, her body is realistic, and if you ask me, that's what being really pretty is really about -- being yourself.

In my eyes, Victoria's Secret is CRAZY to shun Kate Upton from their runway. I think she's a perfect fit. The Florida native has the same sexy look and playful attitude I associate with the Vicki's brand, similar to other VS Angels like Adriana Lima, Lindsay Ellingson, and Erin Heatherton. Not to mention, after the crazy following this lucky lady is snagging herself from the swimsuit issue, it'd be silly not to give her a slot.

See Kate work it during her Sports Illustrated shoot, here:

Do you think Kate Upton has got it goin' on? What do you think of her Sports Illustrated spread?

Image via Sports Illustrated

About the author Emily Abbate

is a blogger and Editorial Assistant here at The Stir.

Filed Under: body, models, spring/summer 2012

Comments (9)

Water_geM

on Feb 15, 2012 at 1:35 PM

i think VS likes a more classy chic kind of model.Miss upton is to co ed girl next door...

Report this comment

Nonmember comment from Melissa

on Feb 15, 2012 at 2:34 PM

"'Kate's look is "too obvious" and "she looks like a footballer's wife, with the too-blond hair and that kind of face that anyone with enough money can go out and buy."' That's kinda funny that they would say that. Hello Giselle and Tom Brady....

i.heart.nerds

on Feb 15, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I am unimpressed by this Kate chick.
Honestly! Her bikini is too small, she has side boobs because it is so small.
Curves? Where are her curves?
VS models are classy and unique looking. Kate is neither.

Facebook comment from Elizabeth Gronewald

on Feb 15, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I find her beautiful and sexy. She has some curves. Every woman has some curves, some more exaggerated than others. Every woman is unique.

Lorefield

on Feb 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I'm not seeing too much in the curve department, unless the author is referring to her breasts. They might be nice, I can't tell because that unflattering bikini top has them pinned down like pancakes. Sorry, but side-boob is not attractive on anyone...

Not to say she's not hot, she is. But I really don't see her look as a VS *runway model*. Remember, they said they would never use her in the show, not the same thing as the catalogue.

coffeeluva

on Feb 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Giselle has a man face so Im not sure what their criteria is.

Nonmember comment from crizzle

on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Ok, I must live under a rock, b/c until my fiance just mentioned her. I did not know who this gal was. I am a VS junkie. I order all of my stuff from VS and pour over the website and catalog. Especially now gearing up for my beach wedding. I was so surprised to find out she was a VS model. For the life of me I can't ever remember seeing her. I know my VS models, they are beautiful in a unique way, memorable. When you see them you know "VS Models". So I guess my point is, while Kate is super pretty and I can see why she is a SI model and guys drool over her. She is not unique to me, VS target market. I can't place her face. I am not sure if that matters or not when choosing models for VS, but it you just know them when you see them. I could easily forget Kate. Not hating just saying.

Facebook comment from Tiffany Ellzey

on Feb 19, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I understand why VS doesn't use her. Look at the VS models, and then look at Kate Upton. Yes, obviously she is gorgeous, but she has a sort of Maxim magazine look to her, and the VS models do not look like that. They are more classically beautiful or exoctically beautiful (like Adriana). Upton doesn't fit into that. She kinda has a "cheap" look to her. I feel bad saying that bc she is beautiful, but I'm just trying to go by VS's logic.

Facebook comment from Daria Jagersky

on Apr 9, 2012 at 2:06 AM

I think everyone is nuts, kate upton is not curvy or voluptuous. Her body is odd looking to me, her waist is very wide, her arms are thin and her legs and just long. There is no muscle tone on her at all, I don't think she looks like a real woman, I think she looks like a gangly spider. I'm disappointed, usually sports illustrated features a more toned looking model, I certainly think kathy ireland looked more real than kate upton does, thumbs down S.I.