Lindsey Vonn SI cover controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Si
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Lindsey Vonn's controversial cover for Sports Illustrated, where her pose has been criticized as overly sexualized, raising debates about objectification and sexism in sports media. Some participants argue that using sexuality can enhance visibility and success, while others express concern about the implications of such portrayals for women in sports. The conversation touches on the double standards in how male and female athletes are perceived and represented, with some asserting that Vonn's athleticism should be celebrated rather than scrutinized for her appearance. The debate also highlights societal attitudes towards female athletes and the pressures they face regarding their image and public perception. Ultimately, opinions vary on whether the cover is sexist or simply a reflection of societal norms surrounding attractiveness and athleticism.
DanP
Messages
114
Reaction score
1
Maybe some of you are familiar with Lindsey Vonn, a prodigy alpine skier, often considered the best skier US has. She was features in Sports Illustrated magazine and she made the cover.
The shoot for the cover can be seen here:

http://www.theskichannel.com/image/news/20100203_Lindsey_Vonn_SI_cover_456.jpg

This specific shoot stirred some controversy lately. There was a strong current saying that the Lindsey's pose is highly sexual, and that SI objectifies women with such shoots.

While I can understand that some dumbass man may feel threatened by the sexuality of highly successful women, I do not understand why some females feels that that using you sexuality in addition to other attributes contributes to "woman objectifying", "anti-feminist", "sexist" , and make such a big drama from it. I can only see envy. Women envious on successful women who also happen to look very hot. So if they can't make it there, they scream foul play and sexism.


IMO there is nothing wrong in using your body and looks to reap more benefits, gaining wider exposure and popularity. We are after all defined by a conglomerate of qualities, and certainly looks is one of those qualities . Vonn is exceptional , strong minded , made it to elite levels in sport, and hot. Why the hell not use *all* she got ?

What's your take ? Is the cover sexist ? Should women avoid using their sensuality and sexuality ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The photo on the cover has her in a tuck position, which is normally done to reduce drag while maintaining stability.

Perhaps the sexuality is in the mind of the beholder.
 
Astronuc said:
Perhaps the sexuality is in the mind of the beholder.

Perhaps, but why the drama in the mind of those who see it sensual ?
 
Astronuc said:
Perhaps the sexuality is in the mind of the beholder.

I think this time its in the beholder of the magazine
 
DanP said:
What's your take ?
:zzz:

Is the cover sexist ?
Some apparently think so. SI (and many other magazines) put attractive women on the cover. Popular magazines exploit sensuality and sexuality - because it sells.

IMO - it's silly - but that's me. I don't buy or read such magazines. I unfortunately have to pass by them in the racks at the checkout counters in grocery stores.

Should women avoid using their sensuality and sexuality ?
That's a personal decision. Human sexuality/sensuality is emphasized in popular culture. Apparently many accept it, and many don't, and some of the latter are vocal opponents.

Some/many men want an attractive mate/wife/gf, and some/many women want an attractive mater/husband/bf, and members of both genders struggle with feelings of inadequacy or insecurity when comparing themselves to elevated standards of what is portrayed or projected as being highly attractive.

And certainly a magazine wishing to maximize sales will select an attractive person, possibly in a sensual or sexually appealing position, and the bonus comes with the controversy.
 
There is nothing sexual in this picture. Seriously, one should be sick in their mind to imagine something else about this picture. This is quite laughable.
 
People will find anything to complain about. The only problem I have with that picture is her hair isn't being blown back when she is obviously traveling downhill at high velocities.
 
humanino said:
There is nothing sexual in this picture. Seriously, one should be sick in their mind to imagine something else about this picture.

oooohhh, my, I'm not feeling too well---



(or, what is that feeling?--hmmmm)
 
humanino said:
There is nothing sexual in this picture. Seriously, one should be sick in their mind to imagine something else about this picture. This is quite laughable.

I agree completely...move along, folks, nothing to see here.

It's somewhat reminiscent of the comments made by clerics about Marjan Kalhor, the first woman winter Olympian from Iran.

One mullah reportedly last year said that women should not ski because the movement of their knees looked "more like dancing than sport.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/10/iran.olympic.skier/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
lisab said:
I agree completely...move along, folks, nothing to see here.

you know that more than often saying things like that just brings more attention to something...


That Farrah Fawcet poster...


I wonder if they're still for sale?
 
  • #11
She's a beautiful young woman and one heck of a skier. I hope she can overcome her injury and race in all 5 events that she had been planning on. Her last training session was called off on account of fog (poor visibility), which her husband called "fantastic" because it gave her an additional day to rest and heal. Good luck!

BTW, when Mark Spitz was on the cover, bare-chested with all his medals, I remember women commenting on how handsome he was. I don't recall anybody up in arms because the cover was "sexist".
 
  • #12
DanP said:
Should women avoid using their sensuality and sexuality ?

:smile:
 
  • #13
humanino said:
There is nothing sexual in this picture. Seriously, one should be sick in their mind to imagine something else about this picture. This is quite laughable.

So am I the only one who thinks that she locks like she is about to take a dump on an inclined toilet?

The only problem with the pic is that it fails at being sexy.
 
  • #14
bp_psy said:
So am I the only one who thinks that she locks like she is about to take a dump on an inclined toilet?

The only problem with the pic is that it fails at being sexy.

that reminds me of the fox and the grapes parable
 
  • #15
rewebster said:
that reminds me of the fox and the grapes parable

Its not the case. I am not saying that she is not a very good looking woman. What I am saying is that the pic certainly doesn't do her justice
 
  • #16
I saw articles about her skiing picture and there was never any mention of the picture being sexual, so I don't know what DanP's beeen reading. The hubbub was about her getting what was seen as commercial coverage promotingn her right before the she competed in the Olympics as an amateur.

It's the SWIMSUIT issue she posed for that raised eyebrows.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/va...-for-Sports-Illustrated-s-swim?urn=oly,218547
 
  • #17
http://www.violetvillevintage.com/ebay/flappered-1213923133-13647.jpg

and these were considered TOO SEXY at one time too!

hubba! HUBBA!


http://www.stylehive.com/bookmark/f...0253527763-end-time-jun2908-175257-pdt-393820


raised eyebrows are to let more light into the eyes, supposedly


______________________________________________
HERE'S A BETTER PHOTO THEN, bp_psy


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/pr/subs/swimsuit/images/10_lindsey-vonn_01.jpg


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/winter/lindsey-vonn/10_lindsey-vonn_1.html

(it does look photoshopped though)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Evo said:
Did you see the swimsuit spread?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/va...-for-Sports-Illustrated-s-swim?urn=oly,218547

Turbo was right, my source was Yahoo. Anyway, the details are irrelevant. Whatsoever it's a swimsuit spread, posing on SI cover, downright porn, or anything else ...

Why is she judged ?

Frankly, she raised at a level where less than 0.5% of humans( yeah, man and women , its irrelevant) have the slightest chance to go. Her mental and physical attributes are a given, anyone who think that you can go elite level in sport without both of them is delusional. She *proved* superiority to most of human beings alive :devil:

Why her fellow "sisterhood" feel so intimidated, weak and pathetic to try to rob her of her success , both as a sportsman and as a very good looking and sexually appealing chick ?

What the hell is wrong with a women spreading on a cover ? I don't get it.
 
  • #21
It has to do with the supposed "pure" image people want of the Olympic athletes. Doesn't bother me at all, but IIRC, pre Olympic publicity has always been frowned upon. They're supposed to earn their lucrative advertising endorsements after the games.

I'm not into the Olympics, so I doubly don't care.
 
  • #22
Topher925 said:
People will find anything to complain about. The only problem I have with that picture is her hair isn't being blown back when she is obviously traveling downhill at high velocities.

She should be wearing a helmet, making her hair irrelevant.
 
  • #23
I hate two-plankers, but she is fine!
 
  • #24
One look at that SI cover and I decided to take up skiing. My wife supported me in this until she set eyes on it. Now I've decided to take up physical therapy.
 
  • #25
BobG said:
She should be wearing a helmet, making her hair irrelevant.

Why ?
 
  • #26
Evo said:
Doesn't bother me at all, but IIRC, pre Olympic publicity has always been frowned upon. They're supposed to earn their lucrative advertising endorsements after the games.

I'm not into the Olympics, so I doubly don't care.

Timing in such events is essential, and from multiple point of view. IOC and organizers will prohibit athletes to make advertising with images containing current, in progress, events. It's only natural, organizing such a event costs a lot.

On the other hand, to create an athlete who can successfully compete at Olympic levels is a multi-million dollar enterprise, especially in the western world, where there is very little state and political support. Those money must flow in from somewhere. Hence, advertising contracts, publicity , you name it.

Evo said:
It has to do with the supposed "pure" image people want of the Olympic athletes.

I wonder why ? So the mediocrity doesn't feel threatened by individuals who supersede them by leaps and bounds ?
 
  • #27
People probably think it's sexual because she's a sexy woman. Go figure, a toned, slender, athletic female just happens to be viewed as attractive by many people, just as a toned, beefed up, athletic male happens to be viewed as attractive and sexy by many people. It does not mean that SI has done something wrong that they happen to choose athletes for the cover of a magazine with SPORTS in the title. :rolleyes:
 
  • #28
Moonbear said:
People probably think it's sexual because she's a sexy woman. Go figure, a toned, slender, athletic female just happens to be viewed as attractive by many people, just as a toned, beefed up, athletic male happens to be viewed as attractive and sexy by many people. It does not mean that SI has done something wrong that they happen to choose athletes for the cover of a magazine with SPORTS in the title. :rolleyes:

I agree 100%. What bothers me is not perceived sexuality, rather perceiving it as "sexist". In my opinion, a top level athlete who can spread her/his body on a magazine cover it is nothing but a display of confidence and a healthy sense of self-worth from multiple points of view.

Why the blame cast on her ? (and others, I can give you many examples, as for example the scandal of our elite level gymnasts who posed naked ). Why perception of so many ppl as "sexist"
 
  • #29
If you're going to make suppositions about why people might think it's sexual, then at least use the photos from the photo spread instead of the cover:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/winter/lindsey-vonn/10_lindsey-vonn_8.html

Oh, and just so we don't discriminate about the single plankers:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/winter/clair-bidez/10_clair-bidez_12.html

And while there's nothing wrong, per se, with the Sports Illustrated cover, the layout could have been different, even with the exact same photo. The letters could have been in the foreground instead of the background. The photo could have been slightly smaller and shifted so neither Vonn's butt nor the lettering were cut off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Well all I have to comment on all of this is that:

This girl is very attractive and I don't mind at all that they took these pictures. :wink:
 
  • #31
She's a skier. That's a skiing pose, especially since she's going downhill. That's what they do to reduce drag. What other skiing pose is there?
 
  • #32
leroyjenkens said:
She's a skier. That's a skiing pose, especially since she's going downhill. That's what they do to reduce drag. What other skiing pose is there?

My personal favorite is spread eagle with a look of terror on my face. How stupid can people be to line up for the tow rope straight across the bottom of the bunny slope. Don't they know no one on the bunny slope knows how to stop?!
 
  • #33
To anybody west of the the Eastern Time zone, please tune into NBC nightly news to see their in-depth story on Lindsey Vonn. She is a sweetie!
 
  • #34
Topher925 said:
People will find anything to complain about. The only problem I have with that picture is her hair isn't being blown back when she is obviously traveling downhill at high velocities.
She should also be paying attention to the slope rather than looking at a cameraman. She could hit a tree!
 
  • #35
Evo said:
It has to do with the supposed "pure" image people want of the Olympic athletes. Doesn't bother me at all, but IIRC, pre Olympic publicity has always been frowned upon. They're supposed to earn their lucrative advertising endorsements after the games.

Maybe 30 years ago. The ban against professional athletes disappeared from most of the sports a long time ago and the vast majority of the all competitors nowadays are full-time professionals. Some of the hockey players that will compete in the Olympic tournament are among the best paid athletes in the world.
Vonn and her competitors are definitely all professionals and if you live in a country where downhill skiing is a popular sport you'll see them on billboards etc quite often. I would be VERY surprised if anyone with any interest in the sport would have a problem as such with Vonn making money via advertising.
 
  • #36
f95toli said:
Maybe 30 years ago. The ban against professional athletes disappeared from most of the sports a long time ago and the vast majority of the all competitors nowadays are full-time professionals. Some of the hockey players that will compete in the Olympic tournament are among the best paid athletes in the world.
Vonn and her competitors are definitely all professionals and if you live in a country where downhill skiing is a popular sport you'll see them on billboards etc quite often. I would be VERY surprised if anyone with any interest in the sport would have a problem as such with Vonn making money via advertising.
Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.
 
  • #37
Evo said:
Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.


I don't see anything bad with it. As I said, in many sports preparing an athlete to elite levels is a multimillion dollar enterprise over many years, and those money must come from somewhere.

The levels of preparedness required to push current records forward requires athletes to train virtually all time. Even if this is still amateur sport, you can't expect a new record from somebody who is earning a living as a biologist by day, and trains as a sprinter in the evening.

And all this being sad, it;s not bad to promote yourself and get free advertising any time you can. You have to make a living.

IMO it's very inaccurate to call it a farce.
 
  • #38
I don't get it, why don't they endorse this kind of thing?

When they put out pictures of models they say "Women aren't that thin, it is unhealthy, stop promoting bad ideals!". So why don't they accept it when they put up elite sportswomen?

I mean, she obviously isn't too thin or she wouldn't be a top athlete, she got natural breasts etc. What is wrong with pictures of a real woman? Isn't it good to have athletes as ideals? Isn't that their main job, to be ideals for the rest of the population to strive for so that they get healthier by exercising?

Also, about suggestive, just look at:
http://blogg.idg.se/data/portfolio_blog/51/82/62/4421847/6610b86c24c39691
 
  • #39
BobG said:
She should be wearing a helmet, making her hair irrelevant.
I didn't see anyone else cite the original source or say what the real issue was considered to be.

I saw it linked from CNN, and here is the original source: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://www.womentalksports.com/items/read/38/162903

She is very thin on the specifics, but it seems most of it was the fact that she wasn't wearing a helmet. However, there is an alternate cover (Canadian SI? Not sure, but the date is off by a day and the articles are roughly the same) showing Sidney Crosby on the cover, in uniform and holding a hockey stick as if he were about to do a face-off...and he's not wearing his helmet either. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/11383/index.htm

I also thought I saw a comment about her butt sticking up in the air and that our attention is drawn to it, but I can't find that. Frankly, I don't think her butt looks all that special in the photo. Certainly a beautiful face though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Klockan3 said:
I don't get it, why don't they endorse this kind of thing?

When they put out pictures of models they say "Women aren't that thin, it is unhealthy, stop promoting bad ideals!". So why don't they accept it when they put up elite sportswomen?

I mean, she obviously isn't too thin or she wouldn't be a top athlete, she got natural breasts etc. What is wrong with pictures of a real woman? Isn't it good to have athletes as ideals? Isn't that their main job, to be ideals for the rest of the population to strive for so that they get healthier by exercising?

Also, about suggestive, just look at:
http://blogg.idg.se/data/portfolio_blog/51/82/62/4421847/6610b86c24c39691
I might sound misogynistic here, but there is a definite double-standard when it comes to this kind of thing. We get it hammered into our heads that women are objectified, teen girls are fed an unrealistic body image, etc...but the fact is that popular media feeds us images of men that way too...and men don't care. The originator of this Lindsey Vonn issue - and many, many others like her - has a chip on her shoulder she needs to have removed.
 
  • #41
Evo said:
Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.

Well, it's only fair considering that our athletes had to compete with government sponsored athletes from places like China and the Soviet. In the old days, our athletes were expected to train while working a full-time job, among other things. Meanwhile, the Soviet and China were selecting future olympians as small children and then providing dedicated training, facilities, and living needs.

As for the alleged SI cover controversy, what a bunch of loons. That is a standard tuck.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, it's only fair considering that our athletes had to compete with government sponsored athletes from places like China and the Soviet. In the old days, our athletes were expected to train while working a full-time job, among other things. Meanwhile, the Soviet and China were selecting future olympians as small children and then providing dedicated training, facilities, and living needs.

Yes, you hit the spot. To compete at elite levels today is almost impossible without being a full time athlete. It's easier in some sports than in others, but anyway, it;s safe to say that the costs of training add up over the years to very big numbers.

And then again, why shouldn't they get rich and use every opportunity offered ? It's not that it's a bad thing to do money from you talents (irrespective is skying, posing for magazines, representing sport equipment companies). It's good to have money and enjoy all the perks which do come with a good financial situation.
 
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, it's only fair considering that our athletes had to compete with government sponsored athletes from places like China and the Soviet. In the old days, our athletes were expected to train while working a full-time job, among other things. Meanwhile, the Soviet and China was selecting future olympians as small children and then providing dedicated training, facilities, and living needs.
So true. A soviet-era athlete would have been trained intensively, provided with room and board, a commission as a military officer and pay, ostensibly for their military service. It's pretty hard for an amateur with no other financial support to buck that advantage.

I learned white-water kayaking from a young lady who was the daughter of an old friend. She was working at an outfitter summers, going to high-school in season, training like a little banshee, and trying to raise money for food, lodging, and travel in case kayaking was accepted as an Olympic sport in the upcoming Seoul games. She was not allowed to charge me for kayak lessons because that would damage her amateur standing in the sport, so I had to find other ways to compensate her. I bought her a waterproof Walkman that so she could listen to music during her workouts, even in the boat, and was prepared to contribute to any properly-structured fund for her Olympic expenses. Unfortunately, kayaking was not approved for competition, even as a demonstration event AND she injured her shoulder badly. She started weightlifting for rehabilitation, and was soon setting world records in women's power-lifting. Amateurs in the US had a tough time competing with the professionals from communist countries.
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
I might sound misogynistic here, but there is a definite double-standard when it comes to this kind of thing. We get it hammered into our heads that women are objectified, teen girls are fed an unrealistic body image, etc...but the fact is that popular media feeds us images of men that way too...and men don't care.

Sure, but men want to be objectified and treated as sex objects.
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
Amateurs in the US had a tough time competing with the professionals from communist countries.

Some amateurs, yeah. But you had your share of athletes in several sports who where far from the image you describe in this post. They where every bit as "professional" as their eastern block counterparts.
 
  • #46
DanP said:
Some amateurs, yeah. But you had your share of athletes in several sports who where far from the image you describe in this post. They where every bit as "professional" as their eastern block counterparts.

The fact is that ALL US athletes were true amateurs. Some were lucky and came from familes that were well off, but others were playing on a very unlevel field. Still, the US athletes have always been among the best. It is a true testament to not only the talent, but also the dedication of the athletes of old.

As a rule, the money only came after winning gold.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
The fact is that ALL US athletes were true amateurs. Some were lucky and came from familes that were well off, but others were playing on a very unlevel field. Still, the US athletes have always been among the best. It is a true testament to not only the talent, but also the dedication of the athletes of old.

As a rule, the money only came after winning gold.

Maybe during '50s .
 
  • #48
Just a bit in the news that caught my attention. Nancy Kerrigan's [former US figure skating silver medalist] brother was arrested for the death of their father. Apparently the son and father got into some kind of altercation that, according to Kerrigan, caused the father to suffer a coronary event. Nancy and at least one other family member are saying the death was accidental.
 
  • #49
DanP said:
Maybe during '50s .

Long after that. I would say this was true well into the 80s. It was certainly true while I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. It was common knowledge. There was no secret money system. At most one hoped to get sponsorship for training geer and other hardware.

Unless a personal coach was willing to train an athlete for pay later, the coaches pay came out of the pockets of the athlete and/or their parents. That was usually a huge expense for anyone even interested in Olympic competition.

The success of many US Olympic athletes was a direct result of many years of personal and financial sacrifice endured by every member of the athlete's family; all working for a common dream.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
I assume she required the payment of a substantial amount of money for SI to use those photos. Glad to see she is a good capitalist.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top