Thursday, May 24, 2007

Mixed Feelings.

So, wow. I have mixed feelings about this cover. Obviously, so do a lot of others On the one hand, I'm appalled at the prudishness of people who can't handle talk of sex, who want to pretend that its not a major part of the human experience, who want to imagine that "serious" athletes or Christians or feminists or philosophers don't think about, talk about, dream about "it" all the time. Or at least often. I, at least, admit to participating in this sport partly because I feel an athletic body is sexier - I want to feel sexy and training and the aesthetic benefits of such helps in that regard. There are many, many other reasons I do this as well, but I'd be in denial if I didn't admit that lookin' hawt was not up there in the top ten. Unfortunately, like one of the folks in the discussion mentions, I have found that when I expend all my energy on training, I don't always have the energy to perform the very activity I'm trying to make myself more appealing for. I can't imagine I'm alone on that. So, sex is an issue for triathletes - and moms and dads and businessmen and clergy (just read the news!) and everyone. And, like it or not, most of us are very interested in it - even if we're only interested in criticizing people who admit being interested. Confused yet?

On the other hand . . . I'm appalled at the fact that Inside Triathlon served up Desiree Ficker like just another piece of scantily clad eye candy. As if the woman was nothing else. And it's gross the way some people (male and female) begin speaking of her as a non-person the minute her shirt's off. Can't a woman be an athlete, a person and a sex symbol? When does she become just an object? And can any of us pretend that we don't sometimes enjoy being objects? While at the same time we're creeped out by it.

See - Confusing. I'd be fascinated to hear your responses on this one - classless smut or intriguing and useful information? You decide.

******** After note - okay, so being the stereotypically ditzy blonde, I didn't realize until just now that this issue is a month old - which really shows how successful their attempt at "Scandal Sells" was - it took me a month to hear about it. hmmm. Anyway, I still think its a relevant topic. So there. Talk amongst yourselves.


the Dread Pirate Rackham said...

both classless smut and useful information have a place in this world.

every copy of runner's world features someone wearing very little and looking very ripped on the cover, and it's full of useless and useful tidbits. Do we ban it? No - they're not trying to cover their boobies. yet we've deemed desiree covering her boobs as socially questionable. I think it's because the magazine talks about Sex in Giant Letters.

Everybody covers their eyes when Sex enters the room. That doesn't mean it's bad. Or good.

It just Is.

Bolder said...

i'm with rackham, i couldn't take the models on the covers of runner's world anymore... i didn't renew.

any magazine that strives to put real athletes on their cover, is ok with me.

des is a sexy lady. she's not apple pie. i know things.

yes, this is old, i got it in the mail day before wildflower, and brought both the sex and swimsuit issue with me on the plane -- the dude sitting next to me almost passed out when i whipped them out of my Ironman backpack to read -- he thought 'this dude is gonna read a couple smut mags on the plane!'

i think, that the lead riders at InsideTri were freakin' brilliant. Triathlete mags swimsuit issue is sooooooooooooooooooo lame, it's not even funny.

THIS was a direct stick in the eye.



oh, and my comment is on the cover, i thought the rest of the way they showcased des was just dumb.

i have spoken.

Donald said...

Sexy, yes. Tasteless, probably. Buzzworthy, definitely.

I'd find her just as attractive with a tri-top on, though.