Not sure what I think of this ...

[Veronica]

It would appeal to me. I'm not gay, but I enjoy looking at beautiful bodies of either sex, artfully posed.

Ahhh... but you're enlightened female. Imagine the flack stereotypical male garage mechanic in Middle America would get from his drinking buddies with pictures of semi nude guys in his calendar.

V.

[twiggjlm]

She is pretty much amazing, regardless of what she looks like! That's just an added bonus for her. Her goal is to be the best mountain biker in the world! I don't see any issues with that! More power to her!

[jobob]

I don't recall anyone speculating that Lance had "issues" when he posed nude.

So let's see if I understand correctly - it's OK for Lance to pose nude, but if a woman athlete poses nude, there's something wrong with her.

m'kay.

[Pedal Wench]

Why is a female posing semi nude offensive? It's all right for straight chicks to have their eye candy, but something for those who prefer ladies is deemed offensive. Sounds like a double standard to me.


V.

There IS a double standard. The difference is that we posted the red shorts, and all got a good giggle about it. What the men do with photos of women is just a tad bit different, don't you think? Plus, the environment in which women are objectified in this country can be downright hostile. Even men can probably tell the difference when they look at something as 'art', which is how I would view pictures of the female form, and something they view in a lewd way.

[Zen]

Why is a female posing semi nude offensive? It's all right for straight chicks to have their eye candy, but something for those who prefer ladies is deemed offensive. Sounds like a double standard to me.


V.

I'm fairly certain no one said it was offensive.
I think the point that's being entirely missed here is the association with cycling/women's sports.
It took Title IV to get our team uniforms in high school.

If this weren't associated with cycling I'd have no problem with it. As it is now, it doesn't exactly command respect for her as a cyclist.
Watch VH-1. There are loads of girls who will take their clothes off.

It seems the fight has been forgotten. Enjoy the shade .

[East Hill]

I'm fairly certain no one said it was offensive.
I think the point that's being entirely missed here is the association with cycling/women's sports.
It took Title IV to get our team uniforms in high school.

If this weren't associated with cycling I'd have no problem with it. As it is now, it doesn't exactly command respect for her as a cyclist.
Watch VH-1. There are loads of girls who will take their clothes off.

It seems the fight has been forgotten. Enjoy the shade .

It took Title IV to force my high school to allow me to take auto mechanics because that class was for 'men'. It took Title IV to force my high school to NOT force me to take cooking or sewing because those classes were for 'girls'.

As zencentury said: Enjoy the shade.

East Hill

[mimitabby]

It would appeal to me. I'm not gay, but I enjoy looking at beautiful bodies of either sex, artfully posed.

EXACTLY

ever been to a museum filled with classic art??

[stacie]

I too think it seems tasteful. The message I got was it's great to be strong AND sexy.

[Duck on Wheels]

Just to clarify ... I'm not offended. And I do appreciate both men's and women's bodies esthetically when artfully posed or drawn or painted or sculpted, even though I happen to prefer sex with men. I don't happen to be all that visually oriented in the lemonade department; for stimulation external to the relationship, I find texts and the images I imagine more tantalizing. And although I can see where this may be fodder for the imaginations of some, I don't read these images as explicitly pornographic. So my question was more about what this trend says about sports, or does for sports. And it is a trend. Lately there's been a lot of quasiporn posing by both men and women top athletes, in skiing and snowboarding and younameit. Not just biking. http://www1.vg.no/bildespesial/show/spesial.php?id=680
From my point of view, yeah, they've got great bods, they're having fun, they're getting paid, they've cleared it with serious advisors ... so no, they personally are not being exploited. But how are they affecting the kids who admire them? And are they distracting from the esthetic of the sport itself, the majesty of the effort and skill? I guess there is a marginal benefit here, from presenting buff bods as sexy, not just skinny ones. It might encourage fitness, rather than anorexia. So maybe all in all, this is a good thing.

[Zen]

I guess there is a marginal benefit here, from presenting buff bods as sexy, not just skinny ones. It might encourage fitness, rather than anorexia. So maybe all in all, this is a good thing.

Girls and women suffer far too much from body image issues.
There are bodies of all types represented on this forum and some of the women here would not describe themselves as either "buff' or skinny but I know they're incredible athletes.
Showing real women and real bodies (like in the Dove ads)would be more inspiring.
Images like this inspire more self-loathing than encouragement.

[mimitabby]

Just to clarify ... I'm not offended.the majesty of the effort and skill? I guess there is a marginal benefit here, from presenting buff bods as sexy, not just skinny ones. It might encourage fitness, rather than anorexia. So maybe all in all, this is a good thing.

As i suspected; you meant something much more profound than we assumed.

[East Hill]

Sorry folks, but the minute I see someone posing with high heels who purports to be an 'athlete'--no.

She is an athlete. But she's not an athlete in those photos, she's just a female body posing with a bike. Please don't tell me that she's going to ride her bike in those boots, or those shoes.

Are WE going to hang that calendar up on the wall? No, I think it's the adolescent guys for the most part, or their dads who will put up that calendar.

East Hill

[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.