Not sure what I think of this ...

[maillotpois]

No one responded to Jo - what's the difference between this photo and the Lance / Leibovitz nude photo?

There was a GREAT calendar put out last year by the Marin Breast Cancer Fund with local Bay Area "poster boys" - many of whom had friends, relatives with breast cancer - posing nude to raise money for the Fund. All tasteful. Kind of a sweet idea. I can't remember what they called the calendar, some catchy name. ETA: Pink Ribbon Men of Marin: http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifesty...aked-men_x.htm


I think this Gunn-Rita photo is a way more positive image for women than the stick insects that walk fashion shoot runways. Plus, like someone said, if I had that body I probably wouldn't wear clothes much at all!!

[Pedal Wench]

No one responded to Jo - what's the difference between this photo and the Lance / Leibovitz nude photo?

Lance's image was a body in motion - an athlete doing what his body is trained to do. If he were sprawled on a bearskin rug, I would say there's no difference at all.

[lph]

Lance's image was a body in motion - an athlete doing what his body is trained to do. If he were sprawled on a bearskin rug, I would say there's no difference at all.

I agree. I have to admit, I don't like the photos, but I'm having trouble putting words to why. I would get a huge kick out of a photo of her posed like Lance was, bent over a bike, muscles bulging, focused look ahead.
It's the whole come hither look, "shy" arms over her breasts, flash of crotch and coy smile that bug me. Her entire pose is classic pin-up style. Not offensive, just - not quite worthy of the amazing athlete she is. In my mind.

And no, I don't believe that she's being used or exploited. It's her body, she can pose anyway she likes. I'm just responding to my view of her as a role model.

[maillotpois]

Good points - the body in motion as opposed to reclining on the couch. But the bike is behind her, she's not in heels or anything stupid like that.

[teawoman]

And the one with her touching the saddle is...er...not about the bike.

[East Hill]

Good points - the body in motion as opposed to reclining on the couch. But the bike is behind her, she's not in heels or anything stupid like that.

But when she is with the bike, she's in heels. And there is one photo of her with high heeled boots on the sofa with the bike behind her. That's the point. Lance's photo is all about the sheer enjoyment of the bike, with nothing intruding. He's not got his hands coyly cupped around his genitals. If he were posed EXACTLY the same way she was, it would be soft porn, and not art.

If she were posed the same way as Lance, it would be art as well. She's never IN MOTION riding the bike.

And her photographer is no Ann Leibowitz.

East Hill

[Deborajen]

When I look at those pictures, what sits in the back of mind are all the struggles women always seem to have to go through to be taken seriously. Men's cycling gets some attention in the U.S. but women's gets practically none. I don't think the pictures are actually offensive. She's gorgeous, and it's great to see a fit woman portrayed as sexy. There are too many anorexic-looking women in the media. But what gets me is the thought of why women always seem to have to flaunt their bodies to get attention - why does it take T's and A's to draw attention to women's sports, women in the workplace, etc.?

Not sure entirely what I think, either, but I do think it's hard to see those pictures as any comparison to, say, the nude picture of Lance, because of what women have gone through to try to gain some equality.

Deb

[Mr. Bloom]

This MAY be one of those times when a man should keep his opinions to himself, but in case someone cares about a male perspective:

First, I've seen lewd before, and this isn't lewd and I don't find the poses particularly offensive...but I could see where some of you do.

However...

A few years back, I was in the grocery check-out and there in front of me was LIFE magazine with a cover picture of the US Men's Olympic Soccer Team NUDE except for soccer balls covering their "boy bits". I WAS INCREDIBLY offended and flummoxed by what I saw as an unnecessary display

Why was I offended?

• Am I prudish? No
• Was I turned on? No
• Were they in an offensive pose? No, a speedo would have been more revealing...and the pose was completely asexual...

For me, I was offended because they were flaunting what I wasn't...buff, athletic, lean...etc. Just like many woman who appreciated the Leibovitz picture of Lance may be offended by Gunne-Rita's photo spread, I am more often offended by same gender "show all's" that leave me shaking my head with a "what were they thinking???" bewilderment.

Now, if a man appreciates the female form, is he automatically objectifying her? I don't think so...do you remember the responses to the "HOT MALE RIDERS" thread that has gotten 8,254 views in the last 3.5 months on this very forum??? Do the member of this forum objectify men by looking at that 8,254 times....the second most views on the non-cycling forum???

Don't misunderstand, porn does objectify women...and men too. But, those pictures are usually clearly lewd and I suspect often that the women (and men) in those pictures lack self respect...and personally, I feel sorry for them...but I say this as a 44 year old...I didn't have the wisdom or insight to understand that when I was 18 years old...

[KnottedYet]

How much is the photographer?

How much is the intended audience?

How much is the model?

I will cheefully admit that I like some of the "hot" pictures of Jessi Stensland riding on her bike in a race, or holding her bike over her head, or ready to dive into the water. But part of what I *like* about these pictures (over the sex-kitten pics of her) is that she is showing her atheltic skill, and it just happens to be incredibly sexy!

Are men drawn to athleticism?
Are they drawn to athletes as soft submissive sex objects?
AND, how much of published photographs is what the marketers *assume* men are drawn to?

Sometimes I think the marketers give men less credit than they deserve.

[Irulan]

Now, if a man appreciates the female form, is he automatically objectifying her? I don't think so...do you remember the responses to the "HOT MALE RIDERS" thread that has gotten 8,254 views in the last 3.5 months on this very forum??? Do the member of this forum objectify men by looking at that 8,254 times....the second most views on the non-cycling forum???

Thanks for pointing that out.

Anyone who says that thread (hot guys) is about art and not objectification is full of it. Is there anyone here who can HONESTLY say that that they did not look at that thread about hot guys at all because they find the concept of objectification of anyone offensive? 8,255 views? Yeah, right.

but anyway, lest some of you think all men are pigs who just want to leer at women who choose to model in ridiculous situations, here's a great thread, all real women on bikes, no draping, high heels or come hither glances... I give you Ladies who rock all women, all real riders, all mountain bikers, all posted by men who love women who ride. Totally safe for work btw