Male olympic atheletes get sexualized plenty, as well. Just take a look at Jezebel.com over the past few days, for example. Is there something worse about the way female atheletes are sexualized?

Athletes have been setting the standard for physical beauty since the ancient Greek Olympics. Have you noticed the sculpted abs and low low suits of the male swimmers?

I would rather look to athletes than models, who are weak both mentally and physically, disengaged and generally seem miserable.

Is it wrong to tell a girl to take up road cycling so she could look like this:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/olympics08/index.php?id=/photos/2008/olympics08/2/DV375992

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/olympics08/index.php?id=/photos/2008/olympics08/2/DV376023

Hey, I'm all for the sexualization of male athletes on Jezebel (I read that everyday). Both genders should be fair play, period.

Blake: I think sexualization of people in non-sexual enterprises is ridiculous in all cases, male or female. Unless it's for an intradepartmental inside joke, I don't want a calendar of the "Sexiest Anthros" being developed at my university. I'm all for sex appeal, but only when it matches content; otherwise it's a trivialization. So, "sexy ladies from _Sex and the City_" works better for me than "sexy ladies making a difference: Susan Sarandon in _Dead Man Walking_." The former is a natural extension of the job; the latter, an absurdity and an insult.

Having said that...

While it's not "worse" for male athletes to be sexualized, it is arguably less harmful to them than to female athletes. Why? Because of history and context and society. Here's some of that for the U.S.:

*women have traditionally been discouraged from "male" athletic enterprises and told to channel their athleticism into acceptable outlets like dance and ice skating (which are both very competitive sports, BTW, but not according to sexists).

*women's sports at all levels--from junior varsity to WNBA--have far lower public interest, media attention, and advertising dollars then men's counterparts

*women have traditionally and to this day (see Exhibit 1: the original post) continue to be defined by their sexuality INSTEAD OF their non-sexual achivements, whether they be in engineering, art, or athletics. Men? They can be and are defined by their sexuality AND their achievements AND their intellect AND their income AND there theories AND their ambition AND their athleticism AND... Get the picture?

The problem boils down to: when you've got a group of people who have traditionally been limited to X, versus a group who has never been limited to any one factor, it will be the X-identified people who will suffer far more by continuing to be characterized in X terms.

lgm,

who is to say that models are "weak both mentally and physically, disengaged and generally seem miserable?"

how many models do you know? i mean, really? there are a whole lot of assumptions in there. i've met very self-assured, strong and skilled models, mostly who see modeling as a stepping stone to other things... and i've known athlete's who've dealt with some serious body issue problems (including bulimic athletes)...

let's not generalize too much about individuals involved in these paths... certainly, that athletes sell fitness whereas models sell products (oh, wait, athletes sell cameras, computers, cereal...) is a valid point, but that's more about the system they're placed in. let's not make it about models necessarily being less powerful people.

Bleh! Where did that "there" typo come from?

great points, okra.

I'm with you Kayla. It wouldn't be as bad if it didn't happen every single time, but it seems as though people can't seem to accept a strong powerful woman without trying to doll her up and make her look more feminine. Our society seems to believe that femininity, and power/strength are mutually exclusive.

I am flabbergasted that Natalie Coughlin didn't make that Maxim list. I'm going to write them an angry letter and then not send it, but I'm sure they'll get the message.

Yes, ONE woman-centered website posts pictures of male Olympian eye-candy. Surely that makes up for every other media outlet sexualizing female Olympians.

@Blake:"Is there something worse about the way female athletes are sexualized?"

I just followed the links provided in the post. Trying to be objective here. I'm sure there is worse stuff out there...

But here is what was posted about two SISTERS from Brazil from the men's magazine.

"FACT: They are hot.
FACT: They like to pose in various states of undress in ways that give us hope that some day, very soon, they might kiss."

Would this kind of copy be written about two males athletes---brothers, even?

"Would this kind of copy be written about two males athletes---brothers, even?"

In an equally vacuous women's magazine like Cosmo? Yes. It would.

Also, you should google the word "yaoi"- it's becoming quite popular in the US. (And I know, it's still a niche thing and nowhere near the pervasiveness of female objectification. Just thought you'd find it interesting.)

"Is it wrong to tell a girl to take up road cycling so she could look like this"

Yes, because odds are great that she won't. I have been researching the idea of "sports-body mismatching" where people chose a sport to try to reshape their body but fail because of genetics. The classic example is someone with a shot putter's body who takes up distance running. No matter how much she runs, she will not get the stereotypical lean runner's body. Instead, she is more likely to develop more muscular thighs and glutes.

This idea should not deter people from pursuing sports that are not traditionally associated with their body types, but does enforce that they should not go into an activity hoping to meet some idealized body type. Instead, sports should be used to have fun and become more healthy.

OMG...have any of you ever competed at collegiate or professional level? Most serious female athletes like being able to kick ass on the field, and also enjoy looking sexy. Do you think they're forced to wear evening gowns w/ sneakers??? Its a way of being subversive & overturning the stereotype that athletic women aren't sexy.

Sometimes these women feel like they're too tall, too muscular, or too big to be attractive. This says they're still sexy too. I think its WONDERFUL that they get to show off their seldom seen side.

i think that's the difference, yeah... male athletes who are sexualized are sexualized by their athleticism. they find their marketability in playing up what they do. on the other hand, women are marketable by playing down their athleticism - almost "cuteing-up" whatever sport they actually engage in and dress in clothes they would probably never wear in day-to-day life. i mean, femininity is constructed very differently than masculinity and the sorts of gendered performances female athletes have to engage in are to contrast with their athletic accomplishments, rather than complement them, as with male athletes.

Sometimes these women feel like they're too tall, too muscular, or too big to be attractive.

exactly my point. why can't an athletic woman be sexy for who she is and what she loves to do, not in spite of it? i think that's the real defintion between how male and female athletes are portrayed.

The difference in uniform between the male and female volleyball players is particularly telling. There is absolutely no need for a gender specific uniform other than to capitalize on the womens bodies. Watching Bush drool over the athletes was enough to put me off of my lunch. Of course women in sports cannot be taken seriously everyone knows that women exist for me to fuck.

On the flip side of things you also have feminist inspired editorials declaring women are just as "Huah!" as men.

But when it comes to women putting their money where their mouth is, they fall short.

Like when the rules were changed for the U.S. open (or maybe it was the british open) for tennis.

Women were to play 3 sets versus the men's 5 sets, but the prize purse would be split equally.
And this was hailed by many editorials as "fair". LOL!

If women are going to paint themselves as "Huah!" then they should stick to their guns.

The simple key missing in this critique is that these athletes enter into a voluntary CONTRACT to do this. Maybe you shouldn't be so concerned about the magazine directors as you should about your sisters who betrayed the cause.

As an example: How are you supposed to take this Danica Patrick seriously when she poses for photos like this?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/19286/original.jpg

Does she want to be seen as being "Huah" or want to be seen as eye candy?

Maybe you should be pointing the finger at the correct culprit and point it at these female athletes for doing these photo shoots.

Okra, I see your point, but I think it's a little more complicated than your rendering.

You say "I'm all for sex appeal, but only when it matches content." So an activity can only be sexy when its explicitly and only about sex? It's bizarre to me that "Sex and the City" would be your ideal type for sexiness, as opposed to sexiness that is intertwined with something more substantial. I would prefer that non-sexual activities be seen as sexy, rather than that sexuality should always be vapid and empty. This is why it makes sense when Jessica talks about a "feministing crush," who made a great video about racist language. It's sexy because non-sexual activities are often a source of sexual attraction.

Sports, in particular, seems to have a pretty intimate relationship with sexuality. I think people are just more accustomed to seeing male atheletes in that light than they are female atheletes, since mainstream female athleticism is new. Doubtless, there are instances when media coverage of female atheletes is disrespectful of their athletic talents. At the same time, if you want to make society comfortable with the idea of women in sports, than I think you have to be willing to tolerate the same kind of sexualization that happens to male atheletes. People sexualize individuals who are leaders and exemplars. What's important is that people who are the objects of sexual attraction derive power and influence form their sexuality, rather than that their sexuality be usurped by others for profit or power.

"Would this kind of copy be written about two males athletes---brothers, even?"

In an equally vacuous women's magazine like Cosmo? Yes. It would."

cosmo would never do that. i've read enough cosmo (sadly) to know that their megahorny attitude is only one that is strictly within the confines of a "sex dudes want" perspective. They're the kind of magazine that would suggest MFF threeways as a way to spice things up with "your man" but wouldn't even consider the dude on dude unless in jest. For all their sexual bravado they're really quite prudish when it comes to challenging the straight dude porn culture status quo. but then again what do you expect...

I, however would gladly suggest they kiss. if they weren't brothers obviously. that's a bit much...

although i'm not sure in what situation I would have two gorgeous brazilian athlete dudes "posing in various stages of undress" for me... such is the sadness of my life.

My dad wanted to know why one of the female badminton players didn't dye her hair a more flattering colour. I pointed out she had slightly more important things to focus her attention on.

The blokes I work with were all drooling over the beach volleyball players, and then one of them stated they shouldn't be objectifying female athletes. I'm not sure he meant it though :(

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it isn't feminine to be muscular. I've been "blessed" with the sort of calves that sprint runners would kill for, and it depresses me every time my dad feels the need to point how muscular my legs are, like it's a bad thing.

You make a good point, Snampire, about the strangely prudish horniness of Cosmo. You're right, that particular publication probably would not touch on any homoerotic topics. But I do think that women's magazines like this objectify men more than some people realize- take Cosmo's "Guy without his shirt" spread in every issue, for example. Or how every article along the lines of "what does his cuddle style mean" etc are illustrated with scantily-clad prettyboys with no relation to the article content. These things are meant only as eye candy, so I have to respectfully disagree that it's all "sex dudes want" centered. But, I don't read these magazines very often, so please tell me if I'm misreading things here :)

"Would this kind of copy be written about two males athletes---brothers, even?"

Not Cosmo, for sure, which is pretty male centered; female lust and desire isn't given much agency.

The only equivilant I can think of is when the movie Brothers of the Head came out. It's about conjoined twin rock stars, played by real life twin brothers who do, in fact, make out during the movie. A few of the reviews I read (entirely in alternative weeklies or non-mainstream film blogs) had female reviewers make a "It's kinda hot! But it's kind gross!" joke. Not the same thing as Maxim WISHING two sisters would make out.

"*women's sports at all levels--from junior varsity to WNBA--have far lower public interest, media attention, and advertising dollars then men's counterparts"

I've often wondered why this is the csse, especially when there are more women in America than men. I think it will continue to change as more and more women compete in sports at all levels but I also think part of it is the nature of some sports and the way mens and womens versions of popular sports are different. The WNBA has a very different style of game than the NBA, similar to my mind in some ways to the difference there used to be between college and pro hockey. Also as more women play the fields in all sports will become deeper, which can only make for more entertaining watching.

I also think though its because, especially with pro sports, a lot of people like to watch the best. Why is the nike golf tour not nearly as popular as the pga golf tour? All the best players play in the pga, same goes for basketball, football, baseball, hockey, rugby, and pretty much every other televised sport. Even in these olympics, take track and field for example, the 100m dash will always be popular, the mens moreso than the womens because casual fans want to see the fastest human on earth, which pretty much always will be a man. Not sure if all that needs to change or if it will.

As far as the sexualization of the athletes, that is a problem in some cases but I dont think it will ever go away, people are amazed by olympic bodies and in volleyball or swimming, the women beach volleyball players do wear revealing clothes but men wear much less in swimming and especially diving, what should women beach volleyball players wear?

I second Puckalish's comments beginning "Exactly my point" and responding to sly's point. Sly, the answer to feeling unattractive and unsexy stereotypes about women athletes is not to counter the stereotype with another (women athletes are Sexy! Pretty! Like Dresses!) but to attack the underlying sentiment behind it.

Portraying female athletes as "mannish" and portraying them as flirty/femme are both two sides of the same sexist coin.

Our goal here is: hey, let's NOT characterize "women athletes" in regards to their sexuality AT ALL! Let's focus on the sports.

Which brings me to...

Appreciate your response, Blake, but you haven't addressed the heart of my argument:

***
*women have traditionally and to this day (see Exhibit 1: the original post) continue to be defined by their sexuality INSTEAD OF their non-sexual achivements, whether they be in engineering, art, or athletics. Men? They can be and are defined by their sexuality AND their achievements AND their intellect AND their income AND there theories AND their ambition AND their athleticism AND... Get the picture?

The problem boils down to: when you've got a group of people who have traditionally been limited to X, versus a group who has never been limited to any one factor, it will be the X-identified people who will suffer far more by continuing to be characterized in X terms.

***

Your comments are once more premised on men. You wrote: "I think you have to be willing to tolerate the same kind of sexualization that happens to male atheletes. People sexualize individuals who are leaders and exemplars. What's important is that people who are the objects of sexual attraction derive power and influence form their sexuality, rather than that their sexuality be usurped by others for profit or power."

Here, you discuss male athletes, and "leaders and examplars." I think you're aware that most leaders and examplars in the U.S. at least have, for quite some time, been male. In focusing on how sexualization of MEN in non-sexual fields has not proved harmful to them, you demonstrate my very point: women, unlike men, have long NOT been perceived in universal human terms. Rather, they have been linked in some way to sexuality--whether in sexual, reproductive, or marital terms.

Men--like members of ethnic majorities around the world--have been assumed to have their sexuality IN ADDITION TO their other attributes. Sexualizing male leaders in non-sexual fields thus does them relatively little harm when compared to sexualizing women, who have in the West been defined by their sexual status far back into antiquity (Madonna/Eve; Madame v. Mademoiselle; mother v. virgin v. crone, etc.).

Sexuality=marvelous, natural, empowering, and many other lovely things. But it is NOT healthy, IMO, to make up lists of "sexy" women (read: those creatures long associated with sex and reproduction) in totally unrelated fields. "Sexiest Lady Engineers" or "Hawt Chefs!" just pisses me off that we have ONCE MORE a link between women and sexuality when, in fact, the women are not engaged in any enterprise related to sex, beauty, or any of the other traditionally women-yoked categoried. They are trying to design the next Boeing jet, jump the next hurdle, or cook the best souffle in city' top restaurant.

I'm a woman. I love feeling and being sexy. And... I'd like a break from being linked to sexuality or reproduction at all freaking junctures of my existence, thanks very much!

Kayla, thank you for this post. I agree with you. Women in the Olympics are sexualize much more often and more viciously than men are. It plays into the deeply ingrained stereotypes that women are for looking at, and whatever they wear or do is for men's pleasure. It's sick. Here's a link that I was going to post about, but I figured it would work better as a comment to your post. This author talks about the women's uniforms for the Olympics and how, for the most part, they are much more revealing than men's uniforms. People say it's for the competitive edge. If it actually enhanced their performance, don't you think the men would be wearing equally tight / scant clothing? Check it out: http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=2066

For those of you that think that women aren't overly sexualized, you need to get a reality check. Yes men are sometimes ogled. It feels shitty doesn't it? Imagine that happening pretty much all the time no matter what other feats you accomplish. It'd suck. Welcome to our misogynist culture.

I realized that my use of caps might appear aggressive, but Feministing. com's comment section doesn't give me any html options; take them as underlining or italics.

Also, perhaps an illustration from another part of the world might help. A tribe I've worked with in a certain part of East Africa is a minority group that has often been stereotyped by the majority populace/larger tribes--and by colonial powers--as unusually "war-like," "proud," and "aggressive." (Quite funny when you consider that most ethnic groups in the world have instigated or retaliated in some type of armed conflict.)

Meanwhile, a political leader in the country--a member of a majority or at least a much larger and more powerful ethnic group--is, as an individual, characterized by the media as a hawkish, aggressive brute of a man. He sort of is.

Now, when we take a member of the first tribe and enter him into the national sphere--as an athlete, a politician, etc.--and we compare him to the Hawk leader, who do you think is more damaged by being characterized as aggressive, quick to attack, and confrontation-happy?

It is not the man who comes from a majority group. The majority is free to be anything: there are timid majority members; intellectual ones; stupid ones; natural fighters; natural wallflowers; sexual ones; sexually indifferent ones; stoners and gunners, poor and rich, progressive and "tradtionally"-minded majority members.

It is the man who is irrevocably linked to aggression simply by virtue of being born into a stereotyped minority, who will be damaged by being ever-linked to those same stereotypes. He's not free to be who he is as a human being capable of the spectrum of disposition and thought and experience.

To then lecture that man and his tribe by saying "Well, look here, Hawk over there is a member of a different tribe and nobody's up in arms that HE's being characterized as a warlord" is a willful denial of history and context.

One of my roommate's friends came over the other night when I was watching women's gymnastics, and after a disappointing performance by the US team, her friend says "well, at least they managed to get hot girls this year as opposed to the '96 team". Disgusting.

Sly said:
*Sometimes these women feel like they're too tall, too muscular, or too big to be attractive. This says they're still sexy too. I think its WONDERFUL that they get to show off their seldom seen side.*

But why do these women feel like they're "too tall, too muscular, or too big" in the first place. Why can't they be seen as attractive or sexy as they are? Why is it that a female athlete has to be put into a ballgown to be sexy, but a male athlete can be sexy in his uniform? Why does their athleticism have to be downplayed?

Here's an interesting clip on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luadmO7Cugc

"Does she want to be seen as being "Huah" or want to be seen as eye candy?"

i think you just pointed out a big part of the problem--that "huah!" and "eye candy" are mutually exclusive domains.

anyway there's just a lot to say here so i'll try to be brief. the sexualization of male athletes is there yes, i'm not going to pretend i don't enjoy the male swimmers, but the difference is in both the amount of sexualization of male athletes vs female athletes, as well as the larger picture. if the only way a male athlete could say, get interviews or magazine covers or endorsement deals was if he was pretty, that would suck. but because men are sexualized as athletes as like, a tangential part of the overall evaluation of them, like oh "ps, he's hot--bonus!" and generally not REDUCED to their attractiveness, it's not as bad as it is with women athletes.

a perfect example of this is how much coverage anna kournikova has gotten when she's not really a great tennis player, but she's perceived as "hot." i'm not saying it's even wrong to have a "sexiest olympians" type of spread now and then, it's just the patterns that exist that reinforce the idea that men CAN be strong and fast and powerful and sexy, but women MUST be sexy if they want anyone to pay attention to how strong, fast and powerful they are.

Here's another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWpLqBVt64M&feature=related

I have spent much of my week absorbing hours of the Olympics, in fact, I'm watching it now. What I find most interesting though is the difference in conversation topics for commentators concerning female athletes in comparison to male athletes and also the gender difference in themes when NBC does the short segments about the lives of athletes. For example, the commentators spent a considerable amount of time discussing the marriages of two beach volleyball players they even included wedding photos. I've heard discussion about female athletes getting married or the love they have for their children multiple times, but only once did I hear commentators mention the child/wife of a male athlete. It seems that the USA has an Olympic team of male bachelors and female matrons.

The short segments about athletes have been much worse. For Michael Phelps and other male athletes they talk about how much they eat every day or how they developed into the athlete they are today. For the women it has been focused on scandals and their romantic lives. Two examples that stick out are a segment on a French swimmer who had a messy break-up with her Italian boyfriend and now she's racing against her ex-boyfriend's new lover *Gasp*. And a Chinese diver who was caught publicly cheating on her boyfriend and then had to chose between her sport or being a celebrity. Where's the drama about Phelps getting a DUI or Ronaldinho sex scandal. It's just ridiculous that the media thinks that to make the female athletes more interesting they have to focus on the gossip and scandal in their lives. Or in the case of some women they need to re-establish the fact that the athletes are still the stereotypical female despite not fitting cultural body norms (which I'm enjoying the debate above). Although my post is slightly off topic I feel like it connects to the huge gender divide in athlete representation.

nestra wrote: "'Is it wrong to tell a girl to take up road cycling so she could look like this' (quoting me) Yes, because odds are great that she won't."

I don't completely agree (or disagree). Ask a weekend runner or biker why she or he does it. Looks come up more often than not. The upside is that it gets them on the road.

I far prefer the girl wanting to look like Nicole Cooke (winner of the Olympic road bike race) than Paris Hilton. Cooke not only looks better, she is obviously healthier and has an activity she loves. Even her body shouts "I earned this".

I played volleyball in high school, and we had an award-winning team (in SoCal, volleyball is huge). The games were exciting and lots of people would show up; however, some of the girls though it would be cute to try to attract even more fans by posting signs around the school that read:

"Volleyball Today - 3:30pm - Gym
Come watch girls in spandex!!!"

I was not amused.

Okra, you actually raise a very valid and cogent point:

"The problem boils down to: when you've got a group of people who have traditionally been limited to X, versus a group who has never been limited to any one factor, it will be the X-identified people who will suffer far more by continuing to be characterized in X terms."

But, what does it say about these female athletes who **DIP INTO** this pool of female sexuality as "first criteria" of review of themselves (thus regressing the debate and sullying their own image as a COMPETITOR first and foremost)?

As in the Danica Patrick picture I linked (undressing with a bikini under her race suit). If an athlete male or female wants to be taken seriously, then they should stick to their guns and not sully their image and display themselves as "eye candy".

If they're willing to sacrifice this "competitor" image for the sake of profit, then the athlete is really to blame.

well, Cosmo definitely does objectify men, but (and this is just my opinion) when compared to the likes of Maxim and stuff of that nature i feel cosmo's tone is just so much more... respectful of the guys they're objectifying. ( and while respectful objectification is pretty much an oxymoron jut hear me out while i sort of explain...)

for one, they are usually bringing in some "expert on body language" to "analyze" the way guys sleep or how they look "post-coital" or the various ways in which they take a shit (one of these three is probably not one) in order for women to interpret dude's various body language as signs of whether or not they want to be in a relationship and clues as to what kind of men they are. While this is pretty stupid to begin with I can imagine there are some younger girls who my take it seriously and stress over whether if he scratches his left ear while putting his other hand to his chin it means he is brooding, but courageous and will probably sleep with your sister...or something. ( i'm just out of high school and i can attest to the fact these girls do exist. )

But anyway, the point i'm trying to make is that when cosmo objectifies men, even though the men are in their underwear and all, they make it relationship-based and less sexual: A dude who sleeps on his back is a keeper! Whereas In maxim, ( which i have also been exposed to agh i feel like i'm at feminist confession today) there always seems to be a tone of misogyny. there are jokes at women's expenses and an open attitude of sexism. one would expect that the opposite of this (meaning the objectification of guys in cosmo) would contain a hint of misandry maybe...but actually it's pretty misogynistic too. (as anyone on this site could tell you) So i mean you gotta give cosmo props for managing to objectify men and staying misogynistic at the same time. quite a feat.

Reading some of the comments on here, I think I may have had my perspective expanded a little (strange since I am always trying to do that with feminists to see things from the male perspective).

I wonder how many not very attractive but talented women have been turned off sports?

I would compare the beauty culture of women to the performance anxiety of men. Men have to perform to be popular whether on the field, in the boardroom. I think this messes with a lot of guys minds in high school (I know it did with me for a while). You can see that a lot of nerds/braniacs are somewhat dysfunctional people by the fact that the nerds who "make it big" parade a super-hot scantily clad arm-dressing woman to their high school reunions.

I would compare the experience of male nerds to the experience of "ugly duck" women. Just so you know the performance anxiety (whether it's to be cool, be a jock, or whatever)established in men can be just as paralyzing, and just as destabilizing (in my opinion) to your mental health.

"If an athlete male or female wants to be taken seriously, then they should stick to their guns and not sully their image and display themselves as "eye candy"."

So, has David Beckham sullied his image?

For folks into soccer: the men's Italian soccer team appeared *almost* bootie-buck naked in a ad that graced the subways of major metropolitan areas in Italy and probably in some print ads internationally. Yet they were not considered lesser competitors for it.

Jackal,

I think your opinion of Danika kind of sums up the problem: she should not be taken less seriously because she CHOOSES to wear a bikini and be sexual. Demanding that she either be a "serious" competitor or be sexual places women in the same boxes this website is trying to dismantle, that we can either be sexual or be serious, but not both.

Most women are very serious about their profession and also like to be sexual. Danika's willingness to put her sexuality out there has no bearing on other female athletes who are trying to accomplish something great and who are reduced to their body parts. I have no problem with what Danika is doing, but it no more excuses the blanket sexualization of female athletes than David Beckham's underwear ad means that all male athletes are asking to be sexualized.

Blake,

You say that male athletes are sexualized on Jezebel. This is true. I have seen several posts about hot male swimmers and such. What I have not seen however, is a montage of photographs which depict the asses of those swimmers. There's a huge difference there. The sheer quantity of lists that feature "Sexy Olympian Babes" is ridiculous. Nearly every men's mag and web site has some version of it, many of which go in to great detail about boob size and shape, asses, girl-on-girl action, and so on. I have yet to see anything of that sort for the other side. Even if such did exist, it's still sexist and uneccessary.

Sly,

I defintely agree with you that female athletes are sexy and are often made to feel unattractive due to their size, muscularity, and such. Why is it necessary to put these women in ill fitting dresses to prove this? Why can't they be sexy while getting sweaty and dirty on the softball field? Why must they have couture gowns to demonstrate their sexiness? If they truly want to go the sexy, fashion-y route, awesome, but why must they wear sneakers and pretend to be engaging in athletics? It's a tired idea, and it delivers conflicting messages.

Okra--

I'm fully convinced by your analysis of the power dynamics that make the sexualization of women in sports problematic. But at the same time, there are other dynamics going on. To the extent that women are sexualized in the olympics, they transform the ideal type of female sexuality by presenting different body types.

Athelete sexualization might not be great if we'd rather that women just be taken seriously as an atheletes. But its beneficial if we'd like some archetypes of female attractiveness besides fashion models. Sexual attractiveness is a marker of social value. So the more that olympic women can break the mold of skeletal, anorexic beauty, the better.

My point is there are competing issues at play, which makes it difficult to give a clear thumbs up/thumbs down on the sexualization of female atheletes.

Jackal1994, you'll get no arguments from me that men in this country have their own set of unfair and anxiety-forming stereotypes to contend with. All measures should be taken to stop bombarding boys with damaging gendered standards that affect their self-esteem. The very point of feminism (which I consider to be another name for humanism) is that gendered constructions must be done away with to the benefit of all people and of society.

As to individual women athletes (or chefs or scientists or what have you) playing into Woman=her sexuality [whether the expression or the repression of it], here are some ideas:

1. It is possible that the women have felt a need to play into the roles that society has set up for them. Why? Because it's so much easier and more immediately "rewarding" to play into the status quo than to fight it and come out the loser. If any minority plays off of a stereotype, I think it's important to ask first: what other options were on offer to this person? What was the person's ultimate goal (e.g. greater exposure for their work in the sport the play? If they are stripper-protestors for PETA, public attention to animal rights?)

2. Could be a classic case of "internalized oppression." I know amongst my own minority group, people are still lining up to emulate Western beauty standards/eradicate their own "ethnic looks," even though they may consciously "know" it's not the most wholesome enterprise for our ethnic group at large. Looking in mirror, they still think they were born ugly.

3. As MM suggested, an individual woman might not even take into account any other issues except that she feels good and sexual and confident in a skimpy outfit and feels like showing that off.

I don't really know what Danica Patrick's motivations were. All I know is that :

(a) it sucks that her individual actions double as a commentary on all women athletes, whereas a naked David Beckham is merely a naked David Beckham,

(b) it sucks that a woman race car driver in heavy coveralls and ponytail and chapstick cannot be construed as a woman who is powerful and sexy and good at racing--that we must check off either the Conventionally Sexy or Not Conventionally Sexy boxes,

(c) it sucks that minorities invariably get ahead in their careers when they don the mantles prepared for them by the Stereotype Gods aka Hollywood screenwriters and mainstream media pundits. It sucks that Black Shakepearean and "serious" actors making it big in movies are few and far between, whereas the saucy 'n' sassy Vivicas and the hootin'n'hollerin' cross-dressing, fat suit-wearing Eddies and Martins, and the "Magical Negroe" (TM) Morgan, and the badass Samuels and Wesleys have no shortage of obnoxiously narrow roles to inhabit.

Blake, I don't think that that's true. Yes, for a month or two, athletic women may be considered attractive, but what about the 20-22 other months of the year? If the idealization of athletic women was continuous, I might agree but instead it is a rare anomaly in the constant onslaught of sexualization of extremely thin, tall models.

Lol, oops, there obviously aren't 20-22 months in a year. I meant the 20-22 months in between Olympics coverage.

First, I thought the Maxim spread was ok. The pictues of the women were (mostly) of them fully clothed or in their sports attire, or doing something related to their sport (such as the rythmic gymnast). They were all "hot" without exposing excessive amounts of skin.

The other website with the pictures of ladies asses infuriates me. These strong female athletes have been reduced to body parts.

Women are not made for men to oggle.

I think the sexualization of female athletes comes down to "athletic" being a categorized as a masculine trait. In order for female athletes (or any "non-traditionaly-employed" females) to retain their femininity, they are forced to somewhat conform to "feminine" societal standards (ie beauty, vixen, virgin, mother, cook). This need to be feminine translates differently on the public stage. That may mean wearing make up and doing ones hair as an engineer, or taking "sexy" photos as a famous athlete.

It's a shame that women and men still feel the need to conform to traditional forms of masculine and feminine while trying to break free from them. But maybe breaking our constructions of masculine and feminine takes a long time. Maybe it takes women like Danika Patrick to show that women can be racecar drivers and still be feminine. Then, when female athletes can be "feminine" without being sexualized and male homemakers can be "masculine" without being body builders, we may finally see the deconstruction of masculine and feminine.

Well, I can hope.

Femgineer,

I agree that the Maxim spread could have been worse. The thing about it the upsets me the most is the fact that such lists exist. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a compilation of the the top 20 sexiest male Olympians in any mainstream media source, yet so many contain lists of hot female Olympians. It's sexism, with an extra shot of double standard.

Blake,

It is definitely nice to see athletic woman displayed as beauty/sex icons, as opposed to the typical runway model or glamour girl, one of which is all skin and bones, and the other which is all tits and ass. Why is it necessary to put these woman is sexy dresses to show off that beauty, however? Yeah, a fashion model looks sexiest in couture, and glamour models look great in lingerie and bikinis. That's their niche, so to speak. Athletes have their niche in being athletic, so why are they not promoted as a beauty standard while looking athletic?

I won't even get in to how the Olympians promoted as sexy and beautiful are all young, predominately Caucasian, and fit the current societal beauty standard...

So, has David Beckham sullied his image?

For folks into soccer: the men's Italian soccer team appeared *almost* bootie-buck naked in a ad that graced the subways of major metropolitan areas in Italy and probably in some print ads internationally. Yet they were not considered lesser competitors for it.

Spike the cat, I am unsure about which women athlete you are comparing to....but I think it's a bit unfair to use David Beckham and the Italian men's football (or soccer as Americans call it) team as an example of men being able to pose in a sexual manner and still be seen as capable.

Firstly, David Beckham was known as one of the best "dead-ball" and "free-kick" specialist in the world, not just in England. He was also captain of the English team.

Secondly, the Italian football team....they are the current world champions. I think that in itself will speak for them.

In men's sport....there is no Anna Kournikova. To be even considered as a goodlooking male athlete, you have to be good in skill as well. I have difficultly right now, trying to think of male athletes who fit the Anna Kournikova profile: very attractive, but not that technically proficient.

If you want to talk football, just right off the top off my head, all the "hotties" (the players the girls drool at during World Cup time) I can think off: Beckham, Owen, Christiano, the majority of the Spanish team (ie. Raul and co. ).....all of these have the talent to back up their good looks with. And maybe the aforementioned are all famous as well, but I'm still having a hard time thinking of a player that was considered "hot" but was mediocre.

I can only imagine what would happen if I sub-par mediocre football player took his kit off or posed in his undies WITHOUT having the talent of Beckham and Co. .......why, he'd be laughed right off the stage.

So therefore, if you have the talent, you can do whatever the hell you want, I guess. I am not sure of Danica Patrick....I don't think the likes of indyracing is anywhere near the popularity level of football (/soccer). I mean, despite what Americans might think of it, the World Cup is more widely watched than the Olympics.

Someone discussed the difference in men's attire & women's attire in certain events (volleyball, track, etc)...Its not some sexist conspiracy. Here's the dealio: If men volleyball players could wear the same tight fitting "buns" that women volleyball players (same goes for track) wear then they would. But its awfully embarassing, on multiple levels, for men to wear incredibly tight fitting shorts. That's why if you see men wear biking shorts its generally underneath regular running shorts.

So, no, the attire thing is a sexist conspiracy.

timothy_nakayama,

I was addressing someone's specific comment if you'll see above. I'm not comparing the caliber of athletes, only the double standard. Even if Danica Patrick is not a great competitor, she is a history maker as one of a VERY FEW women to compete in her sport at that level. Her posing in a sexy manner shouldn't take away from her achievement (as another poster suggested) just like it doesn't take away from the achievements of male athletes.

@ SLY:"someone discussed the difference in men's attire & women's attire in certain events (volleyball, track, etc)...Its not some sexist conspiracy. Here's the dealio: If men volleyball players could wear the same tight fitting "buns" that women volleyball players (same goes for track) wear then they would. But its awfully embarassing, on multiple levels, for men to wear incredibly tight fitting shorts. That's why if you see men wear biking shorts its generally underneath regular running shorts."

Here is where you dig deeper. Why exactly is it embarrassing for men to show their buns but not for women? And why is it OK for some sports but not for others?

For example some of the weight lifting outfits are pretty tight and revealing. Swim suits/ dive suits can be revealing too. Football players asses show. In the 70's basketball shorts for the NBA were much skimpier than they are now. Male ballet dancers leave nothing to the imagination. I could go on.

And just because people question something does not mean we are saying it's some grand sexist "conspiracy". Let's keep the conversation rational here.

Here is where you dig deeper. Why exactly is it embarrassing for men to show their buns but not for women? And why is it OK for some sports but not for others?

For example some of the weight lifting outfits are pretty tight and revealing. Swim suits/ dive suits can be revealing too. Football players asses show. In the 70's basketball shorts for the NBA were much skimpier than they are now. Male ballet dancers leave nothing to the imagination. I could go on.

Spike the cat, I think one of the reasons why men are not allowed to "show their buns" is because, as I'm sure you know as well, male beauty is just not regarded very highly in our society, and some even question whether men are "beautiful" . That and the fact that we are not used to seeing men as objects. For example, like the Italian men's football team getting naked....it's just not "Wow" like if a team of women did it. It's like the adage "When there's a naked woman, all the men drool and stare and ogle; when there's a naked man, the ladies laugh."

I've always encouraged women to be appreciative of male beauty, as maybe I'm an anomaly, but I just get sick and tired that everytime and everywhere I look, someone is always trying to shove a sexy/beautiful woman into my eyes. That and the fact, that I guess, deep down inside, quite a few men out there would like to think of themselves as attractive.

Regarding the sports outfits...I'm not too sure why some sports allow men to have really skin tight clothing, and not others. I think the skin tight clothing is there for a reason for some of these sports. Obviously, a skin tight outfit would have a much more positive effect to sports such as swimming, where reducing drag is paramount. Also, in sports such as weightlifting where baggy clothes could get caught when the weights come down. And in regards to ballet, men who do ballet already have a stereotype, so I guess they are allowed to wear, nay, even expected to wear skin tight clothing.

This also ties in with a fashion article I read recently, where a lot of fashion critics, men AND women alike, criticized this runway show where the men wore tights. Some Men and definitely some women also dont think men should wear skinny jeans. I guess all this ties back to the "uncomfortable to see men as objects" and "male beauty is just blah" thing.

Here is where you dig deeper. Why exactly is it embarrassing for men to show their buns but not for women? And why is it OK for some sports but not for others?

For example some of the weight lifting outfits are pretty tight and revealing. Swim suits/ dive suits can be revealing too. Football players asses show. In the 70's basketball shorts for the NBA were much skimpier than they are now. Male ballet dancers leave nothing to the imagination. I could go on.

Spike the cat, I think one of the reasons why men are not allowed to "show their buns" is because, as I'm sure you know as well, male beauty is just not regarded very highly in our society, and some even question whether men are "beautiful" . That and the fact that we are not used to seeing men as objects. For example, like the Italian men's football team getting naked....it's just not "Wow" like if a team of women did it. It's like the adage "When there's a naked woman, all the men drool and stare and ogle; when there's a naked man, the ladies laugh."

I've always encouraged women to be appreciative of male beauty, as maybe I'm an anomaly, but I just get sick and tired that everytime and everywhere I look, someone is always trying to shove a sexy/beautiful woman into my eyes. That and the fact, that I guess, deep down inside, quite a few men out there would like to think of themselves as attractive.

Regarding the sports outfits...I'm not too sure why some sports allow men to have really skin tight clothing, and not others. I think the skin tight clothing is there for a reason for some of these sports. Obviously, a skin tight outfit would have a much more positive effect to sports such as swimming, where reducing drag is paramount. Also, in sports such as weightlifting where baggy clothes could get caught when the weights come down. And in regards to ballet, men who do ballet already have a stereotype, so I guess they are allowed to wear, nay, even expected to wear skin tight clothing.

This also ties in with a fashion article I read recently, where a lot of fashion critics, men AND women alike, criticized this runway show where the men wore tights. Some Men and definitely some women also dont think men should wear skinny jeans. I guess all this ties back to the "uncomfortable to see men as objects" and "male beauty is just blah" thing.

I guess the thing about men in tight shorts is that they're showing more than 'buns', you can see the shape of their genitals as well. Though that doesn't seem to stop male athletes wearing tight and revealing clothing for the track and swimming/diving events, for example, or gymnastics, so I'm not completely convinced the difference is down to men's shyness. It would be strange if volleyball was the only sport where men put modesty ahead of sporting performance.

It seems more likely to me that skin-tight clothing is not really necessary for a sport like volleyball, and the women are expected to/choose to wear it more for sexiness than performance.

Oh, and as for Danica Patrick being 'sullied' by appearing in public insufficiently covered up - what century are we living in again?

Timothy, that's exactly what I was getting at. I think there are two more things that I would like to add to what you are saying.

The 1st is that the way we overemphasize female beauty/sexuality is partly cultural. So, what that means is, what's considered sexy for both genders is fluid. For example some cultures, tight or flashy pants and shirts on a man is considered very sexy.

2ndly I think the reason why people laugh at overtly sexual poses or displays when they see a man doing it, is because the brain is now able to perceive certain absurdities.

A lot of what western society considers sexy for women are ridiculous contrivances. We've simply just grown so used to seeing the women with the wonder-bra boobs jutting out, thonged asses, glossy lips, backs arched, doughy eyes etc. These contrivances have grown so commonplace and so ubiquitous that I think the idea to challenge these images is lost on most people who grow up seeing only that.

It might be only when you see an ad with a man puffing his chest out, for example, that for a fleeting moment some people get how un-genuine and manipulative it looks. Then they respond by laughing at the man or saying that it looks weird or gay or girly.

Just my 2 cents