August 7, 2012

"If ESPN is going to treat Olympic athletes as sex objects..."

"... why cheat the deluxe-size ladies out of their moment of nude glory?"

65 comments:

Jay said...

Weight bias is one of the last things in our society it’s not politically incorrect to express

Aw.

It must be so hard to live in a society with free speech.

edutcher said...

A good-looking girl for those of us who appreciate women who are larger than life. She was excluded because she didn't fit the Lefty media idea of what a woman is supposed to look like.

As I've noted, the ESPN thing was about Hefneresque exploitation, not a celebration of womanly beauty. Those girls were had and some will come to wish they hadn't done it.

Lyssa said...

Wow, are those the sorts of pictures that female "athletes" are expected to pose for these days? I can completely imagine why Ms. S might have volunteered not to participate. I cannot imagine being a part of a team that was doing that.

Also, can we cut out the whole thing where you're not a "real woman" unless you're overweight? I'm a size 2*, but my adult female organs still work just the same.

(* The non-pregnant version of me, that is.)

traditionalguy said...

I doubt water polo uses weight classes like boxing and wrestling.

But it is definitely an endurance sport. I wonder if she floats better than the more compact ladies.

She could always do ads for mid size cars like Shaquile O'Neal does.

Palladian said...

There are women competing on the Olympics? Oh... I hadn't noticed... Hmmm...

Roger J. said...

I guess I have lapsed into old fartdom--I rather liked watching the olympics when they featured competition. Now I do love naked women, but it does seem a bit tacky to feature women olympians in the buff. And I have to wonder how much time it takes to get them staged for a photo shoot so no nipples nor genitals are showing.

edutcher said...

Lyssa said...

Wow, are those the sorts of pictures that female "athletes" are expected to pose for these days?

You obviously haven't seen any of the print media.

And the water polo team's one is one of the more modest.

Curious George said...

I would bet a dollar on a donut that Melissa Seidemann was not cheated out of anything, but chose not to participate. I applaud her decision not to if I'm correct. I also applaud the rest of the team's decision to do so, cause I'm a guy.

Tim said...

"... why cheat the deluxe-size ladies out of their moment of nude glory?"

Cuz she's fat? Or large, anyway?

And, many (most? most all?) guys already can see "deluxe-size" or "near deluxe-size" or "not deluxe-size and not-Olympic toned" women in their own lives.

How many "deluxe-size" supermodels or pin-ups are there? Damned few, if any.

Crimso said...

I think she's hot.

Roger J. said...

I do know that sex sells--so does anyone know who is paying for these pictures and how are they being marketed? follow the money.

While I think little of the IOC, I dont think they are involved (other than getting their palms greased). Will the American Olympic committee take a position on this?

Pogo said...

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue used to spark outrage. Now there are nearly-full monty photos of sports babes.

I'm not sure what the question is here, but I predict the answer involves men being bad to women.

edutcher said...

Lyssa said...

Also, can we cut out the whole thing where you're not a "real woman" unless you're overweight?

Nobody's said anything about real women or overweight.

And Ms Seidemann is about as fit a woman as you'll find. She's also a big girl and there's nothing wrong with that.

Tim said...

How many "deluxe-size" supermodels or pin-ups are there? Damned few, if any.

A lot more than you think.

Google a name like Ashley Graham or Kate Dillon.

Palladian said...

I just love that many of the beautiful male athletes are nearly naked during their Olympic performances. Admirers of young Tom Daley or manly Troy Dumais or bulgiferous Peter Waterfield basically get to see the complete... uh, package without buying some damned magazine.

LoafingOaf said...

Romney's horse is on the Olympics right now if anyone's interested (on that channel formerly called Versus). Beautiful, well-trained horse, I must say.

Ann Althouse said...

Why should we not fully embrace the reality that the Olympics are a celebration of the human body? Why are we looking at the competition instead of just reading the reports and statistics?

edutcher said...

It's always been about who won, even in Greek times.

It just got crazier in the 20th century.

Pogo said...

" a celebration of the human body"

That's in them other magazines.

I see your point, but it's more than that.

Extremely athletic women don't do it for a lot of men. Palladian demonstrates that males in such prime have a different effect.

Crimso said...

"It just got crazier in the 20th century."

At the risk of crossing the streams, I blame the Nazis.

LoafingOaf said...

"I just love that many of the beautiful male athletes are nearly naked during their Olympic performances."

Weren't they totally nude in the ancient games?

Roger J. said...

Professor--disagree with your comment: its not about seeing the human in the buff (although I understand the ancient olympics were conducted in the buff). Imo it is about seeing how atheletes train the human body to do feats of strenght and endurance. I was fortunate enough to see Olga Korbut's 10 performance in the 72 olympics--I saw a magnificent athlete doing nearly impossible things--I never had to see her in the buff to recognize her althleticism.

Lyssa said...

edutcher said: Nobody's said anything about real women or overweight.

And Ms Seidemann is about as fit a woman as you'll find. She's also a big girl and there's nothing wrong with that.


Stacy McCain's reference to "guys who like full-grown women" strongly implied that smaller women are not "full-grown women." I'm sure that Ms. Seidemann is fit and healthy, and I've never said that there is anything wrong with that or with liking it. (though she's certainly overweight by any definition thereof)

My complaint is with the idea that somehow smaller woman are not fully women. It's as obnoxious as the sorts of people who attempt to show how racially in touch they are by using "white" as a perjurative, or feminists who proclaim males to be automatically inferior.

William said...

I saw the underwater shot. How is it possible to get so many naked women to pose underwater, holding their breath while not revealing a single nipple. Talk about herding cats.....It's amazing how many female pole vaulters are extremely attractive. Not all of Freud's insights should be discarded....Nudity implies vulnerability. But if you're an Olympic athlete, nudity confers power. Nakedness is different for them than for us.

edutcher said...

It's the idea of muscles on women. 100 years ago, it was no biggie.

Lyssa said...

I've never said that there is anything wrong with that or with liking it. (though she's certainly overweight by any definition thereof)

Overweight by what standard? Something for the average, sedentary American?

Ms Seidemann is a strong woman and there isn't an ounce of superfluous flesh on her I could see. The overweight charts are about being fat.

She ain't.

My complaint is with the idea that somehow smaller woman are not fully women.

Smaller isn't the issue. Fashion model emaciated is.

You miss the point.

Robert Stacy McCain said...

This is one area where I actually agree with feminists: The major media tend to present us with a standardized one-size-fits-all concept of beauty, a concept that warps the minds of those who can't step outside the media-generated mentality and realize how their aesthetic sensibilities are being manipulated.

We will never live in a world where 6-foot-tall 180-pound women are regarded as ideal, obviously, but why can't the media acknowledge a greater diversity of body types as being acceptable and even possibly attractive?

As I have elsewhere observed, Olympic coverage tends to celebrate female gymnasts -- abnormally diminutive and, in most cases, underaged -- as ideal. The lanky women's volleyballers are practically regarded as pinup material. So here you have something of a rara avis: A female Olympic competitor of extraordinary ability (in a swimsuit event, no less) who is quite plump, and who might become a sort of heroine, a rallying symbol for all those many girls who struggle with weight or "body image" issues, and yet she's excluded from this ESPN pictorial featuring her team?

There's a word for this: WRONG, and it's the sort of wrong that seldom gets righted, because people feel embarrassed to speak up about it.

Palladian said...

Weren't they totally nude in the ancient games?

Yes they were, and it's time to return to those glorious days!

Darrell said...

I agree with you 100% Lyssa.
I am sick and tired of reading the dozens of comments every time a picture of a slender woman is published saying "Give her a cheeseburger!" I always take it as guys trying to suck up to their size 16 women, lest she stumble upon what was written. Or psychological programming to go home later. They know what is waiting there. Watch those same guys in a roomful of those "stick women" when their wives aren't around and they are tripping over themselves to hit on them.

The internet has places for every preference--and then some. No need to bash the ones that don't appeal to you.

Patrick said...

RSM: a rallying symbol for all those many girls who struggle with weight or "body image" issues, and yet she's excluded from this ESPN pictorial featuring her team?

Agreed, depending upon why she was not in the photo. Do we know she wanted to be, but was told she could not?

Lyssa said...

Smaller isn't the issue. Fashion model emaciated is.

You miss the point.


Why are you so sensitive about this issue? Of course she has extra flesh on her - that's obvious from just the picture of her in a t-shirt. But, so what? Again, that's not some sort of horrible accusation, just an observation. Some people like that sort of thing, some don't. They're allowed.

You are the one who misses the point - there's a huge difference between 200+ lbs (which is large even on a very tall woman,as is clear from looking at Ms. S) and emaciated. It's entirely possible for a woman to not be emaciated, and also not be overweight or "big". By automatically equating slim, or even medium, with emaciated, you entirely miss the point.

Roger J. said...

Agree with Darrell--attractiveness is the eye of the beholder. If we are superficial enough to desire a certain body type, then thats an issue for the observer--the ideal woman, imo is one with whom you wake up in the morning and carry on a conversation over a cup of coffee without asking, "was it good for you baby?"

Palladian said...

Extremely athletic women don't do it for a lot of men. Palladian demonstrates that males in such prime have a different effect.

Ok, I'm going to generalize here: the most desirable women look as though they're fecund, capable of bearing and nurturing offspring without dying in the process. The most desirable men look as though they're able to defend against attackers, pursue game and fuck prodigiously.

Skyler said...

"... why cheat the deluxe-size ladies out of their moment of nude glory?"

Obviously because they are treating them as sex objects and they are not attractive. I don't see the inconsistency.

Lyssa said...

Robert Stacy McCain, just for the record (since you decided to visit), I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you've said, other than your (very common) implication that somehow smaller women aren't "fully grown." If she was actually left out intentionally, that is wrong - if ESPN wants to try to sell that they are doing art and a celebration of olympian bodies, and not just looking to appeal to the purient, then they shouldn't leave less mainstream-desirable bodies out.

That said, I don't think that they actually are doing anything other than soft porn there, and I wouldn't make the assumption that she was intentionally left out. I wonder how many women choose not to participate in these shots - they are pretty graphic, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do them.

Pogo said...

"Ok, I'm going to generalize here:the most desirable women look ...The most desirable men look..."

Exactly right.

Nathan Alexander said...

I'm with Lyssa.
I like a woman to be slender.
I'm a pretty big guy to begin with, but a slender woman makes me feel stronger, more masculine.

I don't want a woman who outweighs me (or even comes close), I don't see how anyone could be attracted to that.

The fact that some men are attracted to larger women is no skin off my nose, but I don't get this need to stigmatize slender women and/or the men who prefer that.

edutcher said...

Lyssa said...

Smaller isn't the issue. Fashion model emaciated is.

You miss the point.


Why are you so sensitive about this issue?


I'm not, you are.

We've gone around on this before and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about being smaller.

For some guys, a good-looking woman has a bit more to offer, but I'm not talking about height or size.

I'm talking about the "fashionable" women who look like they just walked out of a concentration camp. I can appreciate a slender woman or one who's 5' 2" or less (here in NE OH, they're all over the place), but you seem to go up the spout every time somebody says something about larger women. I think you need a little perspective on this.

We don't always agree, but I think your opinions are usually well-thought out. This seems to be a blind spot, however.

Roger J. said...

per Nathan Alexander's point--it isnt a function of body size imo--its the ability to be able to talk about almost anything--to do crossword puzzles together (the WSJ sat puzzle is great), to go dancing, to go fly fishing, to do team cooking. When body size is the only function, we have lost something in the definition of a relationship.

Darrell said...

but you seem to go up the spout every time somebody says something about larger women.

Could it be because you seem incapable of praising large women without bashing slender women? Point me to one of your comments where that isn't true.

Just say you're a tubby fucker and be done with it. We get it.

Roger J. said...

I thought the term "tubby fucker" was gross--but thats just me. I do pity any lady in a relationship with you.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

do pity any lady in a relationship with you.

Thanks for your input!

The largest crayon box feautures 120 unique colors--for a reason. Use the 10-count one if you wish.

edutcher said...

Darrell said...

but you seem to go up the spout every time somebody says something about larger women.

Could it be because you seem incapable of praising large women without bashing slender women? Point me to one of your comments where that isn't true.


I praise Ann's looks all the time and she's slender.

Point me to one where it is true.

Just say you're a tubby fucker and be done with it. We get it.

Just say you're a dumb fucker and be done with it.

do pity any lady in a relationship with you.

Thanks for your input!


Gee, sounds just like a sockpuppet.

Wassamatta? No good non sequiturs today after finding out Choom's losing at least 9% of the people who went for him last time or just trying to digest the fact that it's come out those 163,000 jobs "gained" last month turned out to be 1.2 million jobs lost?

Darrell said...

Gee, sounds just like a sockpuppet.

Of whom? But sadly, that's not the most idiotic thing you've said.

Since you can't even figure out that I am not an Obama supporter, there isn't much to say. You're sexual partners may be dumb fuckers, though. But that is because of you. Let's just say we know where the arrow points on your "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt.

Dante said...

Why should we not fully embrace the reality that the Olympics are a celebration of the human body? Why are we looking at the competition instead of just reading the reports and statistics?

a) It's obviously not only about the celebration of the human body.

b) Like life, Capitalism will grow wherever there is energy. Think of roach coaches, and how someone actually made a truck specific to that purpose. Then think about the opportunity of showing off a bunch of willingly naked women.

Showing the naked women might not even be bad. Who knows, maybe girls will want to become water polo players on account of it.

Dante said...

Lyssa, is that a picture of you or is it merely a way to draw attention to your posts?

Maguro said...

Uh oh, now Lyssa's upset because Stacy McCain doesn't think she's hot. See what mischief you've caused, Althouse!

LoafingOaf said...

Palladian: "Yes they were, and it's time to return to those glorious days!"

I'd like to see some naked trampoline.

Palladian said...

...or naked bicycling events.

Or pole vaulting. So to speak.

Nathan Alexander said...

@ Roger J,
per Nathan Alexander's point--it isnt a function of body size imo--its the ability to be able to talk about almost anything--to do crossword puzzles together (the WSJ sat puzzle is great), to go dancing, to go fly fishing, to do team cooking. When body size is the only function, we have lost something in the definition of a relationship.

I draw a line between "attraction" and "love".

Attraction is before you have the relationship. After a relationship is established (and it may be established due to work proximity or other reasons other than attraction), the interests, personality, and character come into play.

Jay said...

Robert Stacy McCain said...
This is one area where I actually agree with feminists: The major media tend to present us with a standardized one-size-fits-all concept of beauty, a concept that warps the minds of those who can't step outside the media-generated mentality and realize how their aesthetic sensibilities are being manipulated.


You're completely and absolutely wrong.

There is no "media manipulation" of anything.

This is a reaction to what humans respond to visually.

And science shows us that it is: younger, taller and lighter women being rated as more attractive

traditionalguy said...

Men's opinions about women's bodies vary.

For me a petite 100 pounder brunette is heaven itself. But when moving furniture the big hipped 180 pounder redheads are what you want. And contrary to myth, those larger Nordics seldom roll over on you at night and smother you.

But we must not condemn a whole breed.

They are all good if you treat them with love and respect. They all give more than they take by 100 to 1.

The Crack Emcee said...

Roger J.,

Now I do love naked women, but it does seem a bit tacky to feature women olympians in the buff.

Not as tacky as the women agreeing to do it. As a group, too.

I swear, put a camera in front of a woman and you've got a study in narcissism, ready for peer review. Almost every woman I've ever known has a photo collection of herself in the nude. They always go great with the teddy bear/dolls/flying pigs and rainbows motif - or, at least, are helpful when you're trying to diagnose schizophrenia.

A nation with one hand always stuck in it's crotch isn't going to get much done,...

Salamandyr said...

Palladian said:


Ok, I'm going to generalize here: the most desirable women look as though they're fecund, capable of bearing and nurturing offspring without dying in the process. The most desirable men look as though they're able to defend against attackers, pursue game and fuck prodigiously.


True. It's also why women tend to make better models. The female form is beautiful recumbent. Male beauty requires motion.

Big Mike said...

A bunch of thoughts were inspired by McCain's post.

Imprimis, McCain seems to be leaping to the conclusion that Melissa Seidemann was not invited to the photo shoot. I followed his links (glad I'm home today, as the photos are definitely NSFW) but no one actually comes out and says that she wasn't invited to the shoot. What if she just didn't feel like posing nude? Is it okay if one or more of our female Olympic athletes decides she wants to keep her clothes on?

Two, in our late 20th and early 21st century culture, a lot of women with excellent physiques seem not merely willing, but downright eager to show off their entire bodies. Back before that electrifying World Cup victory Brandi Chastain had previously posed wearing nothing but a strategically-placed soccer ball. As she put it at the time, she worked hard for that body. And I'm sure she did.

As a heterosexual male, I'm not going to object too loudly, but I wonder whether this business of athletes posing nude (both genders do it) is a good thing. Do high school age females feel pressure to strip after all these photos of the volleyball team, the water polo team, and various individual female athletes suggest that it's okay? I'm asking the question, but I don't know how to answer it -- and I have a strong feeling that I'd get labeled as a dirty old man if I did.

Rabel said...

You can't get too much of a good thing.

Viva Italia

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't want a woman who outweighs me (or even comes close), I don't see how anyone could be attracted to that."

Oh, no! This is why guys are getting so fat! They're trying to stay ahead of women so they can find women sexy! Women need to get skinny so men won't have to be obese in order to get an erection.

Somebody tell Michelle Obama. This is a scientific breakthrough. It is clear now. It's women's fault!

edutcher said...

Darrell said...

Gee, sounds just like a sockpuppet.

Of whom? But sadly, that's not the most idiotic thing you've said.


These guys need to get better writers. Same comebacks, same boilerplate.

And he never did come up with one of those quotes where I dissed slim women (or even Slim Whitman).

Since you can't even figure out that I am not an Obama supporter, there isn't much to say.

Sure sounds like about 2/3 of them, doesn't he?

You're sexual partners may be dumb fuckers, though.

No, the dumb fucker is still Darrell, for lowering the conversation to this level.

And my only partner is The Blonde, one of the smartest nurses he'd be lucky to meet.

wyo sis said...

Anything about decadence? The end of civilizations? Anamalistic hedonism? Fiddling while Rome burns? Cabaret?

The arc of history?

Cedarford said...

Hard to go against tradition. The two underlying premises of sports were:

1. That it made for manlier men better able to fight and war and protect society. So many sports originated in development of military skill sets.
2. And that sports helped sculpt beautiful men and women. And spectacle and entertainment from Minoan and Greek times was just as much about admiring and even hungering for those bods as it was about "just the athletic competition"!

Started with the Minoans. But ancient Chinese and Indian art also idealized comely naked or near-naked male and female athletes.
And it continued with just interruptions from medieval injunctions against stimulating lust, Victorian modesty.
By Leni Refienstahl's time, the beauty of the naked athlete had made a glorious comeback and "Olympia" set the modern template.

Of the women, I agree with a previous commentor that certain sports seem to have the best-looking female faces and bods. Not all in that sport! But female pole vaulters, high jumpers, figure skaters, tennis players, surfers - more than their share.

But beauties just as good exist in sports where butch, apelike, fat is not atypical.
Some beautiful lady basketball starts. In soccer, though flat-chested, Alex Morgan is incredibly beautiful as well as being the most dangerous competitor on the field.

BTW - There is a reason that NBC sometimes disgresses from featuring Amuricans and their medal counts and Phelps mother making imbecilic faces....to feature the European and Latin America pole-vaulters with no Amurican in sight..

Darrell said...

People who refer to their wives using terms like "The Blonde" are neither smart nor funny. Now go through my comments here since this blog began (shortly thereafter) and find just one that leans left--don't worry there aren't that many--I usually just read. You can't find one, can you? So you are wrong once again, aren't you? You never did say who I am supposed to be a "sockpuppet" of, so I'm thinking you believe saying it is all you have to do--make a besekless charge. I only comment with my real name and believe me I do not communicate with anyone else here, much less speak for them.

You lowered the conversation but you just couldn't bring yourself to describe your fetish accurately. I could have used "BBW," but then readers would have to do a search.
Like who you must, Ed. Just don't hate on the rest. It's all good.

Nichevo said...

It's women's fault!
Althouse 8/7/12 1:39 PM

There, there. Don't be ridiculous, Professor. We know it's never women's fault.

...

(rest of burn deleted for harshness. I must commend you, Professor, for coming out on the line and doing this every day, in a space where inherently you're presumed neither in real authority nor the smartest one in the room.)

Darrell said...

Btw, the woman who was the body double for Maureen O'Sullivan in her nude scenes in Tarzan and His Mate was an Olympic swimmer--Josephine McKim. She competed in the 1928 games with Johnny Weissmuller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPrWCCPADNs

Baron Zemo said...

Darrell you must desist in you taunting of our estimable friend. He is a man of simple pleasures. His wife. His pitiful life. His slavish devotion to his fearless leader.

If he had a clubfoot he would be Joseph come again!

But that would be much to hope for!

Alan said...

Oh, no! This is why guys are getting so fat! They're trying to stay ahead of women so they can find women sexy! Women need to get skinny so men won't have to be obese in order to get an erection.

Somebody tell Michelle Obama.

Someone tell Mayor Bloomberg. He's getting in the way of progress. Bring on the Molon-Labe-sized fountain drinks!