Sex and the Olympics

So Sunday's NYTimes was all about Sex and the Olympics:

• The Rise of the Buff Bunny
• Olympians Strike Pinup Pose, and Avoid Setting Off a Fuss
• Olympics Pinups - AV

The heavy use of images certainly raises issues about the difference between the NYTimes and those they are reporting on. But it was supposed to raise issues about weather this is right or wrong, good or bad.

I think that they deplore a double standard that does not exist. The cover of GQ is about sexy men as much as the cover of FHM is about sexy women. The fact that athletes now grace the cover of both, seems an increase in equality not a decrease.

It's not surprising the attractive people in the news can leverage their beauty and fame. Nor is it clear to me why it is bad to use sports-based fame and not the runway, or daddy's money, to launch an It Girl career. I'm not seeing the story here.

And there are interesting things here. These articles bring up, tangentially, the point that the Olympics get men to watch woman's sports. Get everyone to do so in such great numbers that there is money in it. That is different than the everyday. There should be some serious thought why this is reproducible, but woman's league sports aren't ever moneymakers. And that even college level sports that do make $$ in the Olympics aren't worthy of TV coverage the rest of the time. There is surely a lot to do with the event-ness of it. But there is other stuff as well. And this is interesting.

For the fashion pages the interesting point is that that buff woman are now attractive. This trend is both interesing and, I think, good in and of itself. Its also new. The rise of the athletic female body in fashion would be an interesting topic, but criticizing those who take advantage of the trend, not so much.

But deploring people using a bit of media coverage, and a bit of sex, to gain greater fame - well that seems a bit unnoteworthy.

Comments