skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Sports Illustrated Cover Controversy
I recently came across an article which was in response to the cover photo of the February issue of Sports Illustrated. The photo is of a female athlete on the USA Olympic skiing team. Critics of the photo say it is too provocative and that she shouldn't be portrayed as a sex symbol, but an athlete. In my opinion, the photo isn't racy at all. I think it is appropriate for the type of magazine that Sports Illustrated is and does not portray her in a negative way. I think that it is interesting that there is controversy over her being on the cover just because she is an athlete. The heading of the photo even portrays her as "America's Best Woman Skier Ever". I wonder why being an athlete sets her apart from other woman who have been on the cover. There have never been objections to other covers of the magazine which portray woman in a much more negative way than this photo. Many athletes, female and male, take advantage of the endorsements they can receive even if they are based on the way they look. For example, Anna Kornikova has been portrayed as a sex symbol ever since she started playing professional tennis. Why is she different from the skier being portrayed in a similar way? Is it because of the way she acts or presents herself or even the sport she plays that makes it less of a controversy?
I read this article too and I thought it had interesting points throughout. I don't think this photo is objectifying her in anyway. I think that SI is only trying to let everyone know that she is the athlete to be looking for this Olympics. I believe that the only reason why people are okay with Anna Kornikova being portrayed as a sex symbol because tennis has always been known as a sport where women get to flaunt their bodies. Most people don't think of skiing being a "sexy" sport. I think this is why everyone is so shocked to see Vonn in this so called "provocative" pose.
ReplyDelete"I think that it is interesting that there is controversy over her being on the cover JUST BECAUSE SHE IS AN ATHLETE. " (Emphasis added).
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I think you'd have to be pretty blind to not see the fact that her butt is in the air, and she's on a rather interesting angle, while also donning tons her usual spandex and not-so-usual Photoshop. Fortunately, you are not blind, so I think it would make sense to mention that there is more than "only" the reason she is an athlete that makes her photo controversial. I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get that shot when actually skiing, or that pose in general, even on a slope. So why not an actual awesome in-action shot of real skiing instead of a butt-flaunt? It seems pretty deliberate.
Also, when it comes to wording, first you say, "In my opinion, the photo isn't racy at all." So you're saying this photo doesn't imply sex at all, because, as you say, it's not racy.
Then later, you say, "There have never been objections to other covers of the magazine which portray woman in a much more negative way than this photo." Here, saying this is a "more negative way" than the first photo implies that you, in fact, do think that the first photo is negative. If the first photo portrays women negatively, then what is negatively being portrayed about women in it, other than raciness (sex)?
And then you compare her being an athlete and widely-complained-about to the fact that Cornicova is also is an athlete-who-poses-sexually who is not as often complained about. Doesn't that contradict you earlier saying that they are objecting to her "just because she is an athlete?"
I think you're misrepresenting the controversy. The people disliking the first photo would probably dislike the second photo in much the same way.
Also, I'm curious, do you think the relative degree of linking non-sexual women's achievements to sex matters, or do you think the fact that women are linked to sex virtually all the time, regardless of their activity, is bad?
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to get across in my blog is that people are making a big deal out of the picture when there have been much worse images of woman who are not athletes on their cover. Because they do not say anything about the portrail of these woman, we can infer that they are dislike the fact that a female athlete is being portrayed in a sexual way. I disagree with this because there are other athlete, such as Cornicova, who are portrayed as sex symbols all the time. I agree with Caroline that she is in a sport that is considered sexier than skiing, however, they are both female atheletes being portrayed in the same way and one woman gets bashed for it, and the other is not.
ReplyDeleteObviously her pose is not normal for a skiing position, but i don't beleive that was the point of the shoot. She is POSING for a reason. The fact that they chose not to take an action shot is because she would be wearing a helmet covering her face. I think in this shot they wanted to emphasize the fact that she is an athelete, but also an attractive, femenine woman.
And as for linking woman to sexual things, I would like to point out that she chose to take up the offer with SI to pose on their cover, fully knowing woman are usually portrayed in a sexual way. So no it is not bad to be sexy.
She's in an athletic pose, in athletic gear. The only people who are degrading women, and specifically Vonn, are those who claim she didn't merit the cover based on her athletic talents or that try to make the situation sexual when it is not.
ReplyDelete