Skier's Semi-Provocative Pose for SI Creates Ire

[Z-06]

Let the Lindsey hype begin: Vonn is Sports Illustrated cover girl

By Chris Chase

Lindsey Vonn is hoping the Sports Illustrated cover jinx doesn't cross international borders. America's great Winter Olympic hope is featured on the front of SI's Winter Olympic preview issue, which hit newsstands Wednesday.

Vonn's semi-provocative pose has drawn the predictable ire from those who claim that it objectifies her. She's an athlete, not a sex symbol, the chorus inevitably reminds us.

From womentalksports.com:

Vonn is first a GREAT athlete, but she also represents norm of feminine attractiveness. The combination of athleticism and attractiveness make Vonn the likely poster girl of the US Olympic Team, and the media hasn't disappointed in constructed her as such.

Not to be left out, Sports Illustrated is featuring Vonn on their Feb. 8, 2010 cover. For those of you who follow SI Covers, know that female athletes are RARELY featured on the cover.

Over the last 60 years researchers have shown that about 4% of all SI covers have portrayed women.

When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action-and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception.

They have a point in taking issue with SI; the magazine rarely features women athletes on the cover (as evidenced by that statistic) and its annual swimsuit issue has been a focus of protests for decades. But Vonn's cover is different.

The pose at least resembles the tuck stance skiers like Vonn take when barrelling down the hill. It's exaggerated, of course, but not gratuitously so. It's not as if SI put her in a bikini in a Whistler hot tub.

Also, this is Vonn's moment. If she wins multiple golds in Vancouver, Vonn has the potential to become a major crossover star. She'd be like Michael Phelps, only with better looks and an actual personality. Landing on the SI cover is a good way for her to start the Vonn saturation campaign. It's as important for her as it is the magazine. The pose is suggestive, sure, but it's not objectifying. The headline reads "America's best woman skier ever", for Jean-Claude's sake! Why can't she be both the best skier in the world and really, really attractive too? Tom Brady's a great athlete and a handsome dude and I don't hear people whine when he's shirtless in GQ.

Most importantly, this cover is almost identical to the one that ran on SI's Winter Olympic preview in 1992. That one featured a gentleman named A.J. Kitt and I'm pretty sure nobody complained that it was too

[ShadowDog]

Really, if this same image were of someone significantly less attractive by society's standard, would this even be an issue?

Edited February 5, 2010 by ShadowDog

[Blake Noble]

Really, if this same image were of someone significantly less attractive by society's standard, would this even be an issue?

It would still be an issue ... just the complete opposite of this one, say, if Rose O'Donnell were in that pose on the front of Birkenstock magazine.

... I wholly support this post being repped down.

Edited February 5, 2010 by whiteknight

[FAPTurbo]

CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR REP SCORE LOL

[Blake Noble]

CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR REP SCORE LOL

What? You wouldn't rep that down even though you are now picturing Rosie O'Donnell in a position suggesting she is about to take one up'er arse because of it? Is there something you aren't telling us ... ?

Edited February 5, 2010 by whiteknight

[ShadowDog]

The intention of your comment was so juvenile, I gave you one point.

[balthazar]

>>"When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action-and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception."<<

Only difference here WRT "in action" is she's not literally moving. Pose is the same either way. That claim is moot.

I agree that the issue is she's attractive- I don't believe that a 'Rosie' would have garnered the same attention.

I've seen numerous pics of chicks skiing in bikinis when the weather is right- she's not in anything but her pro uniform here.

Protest here = she's supposed to look unattractive and physically uninteresting so one doesn't think about boning her. People are too hung up on/ashamed that they are frequently/spontaneously thinking about sex- as if we weren't largely wired to do so.

Thinking about sex is why I wake up every morning.

Edited February 5, 2010 by balthazar

[Intrepidation]

Care not do I.

[SoCalCTS]

How is this controversial? It's not really suggestive or sexy. I just don't get it.

This is no more sexy than any woman on any other magazine. False controversy.

[Drew Dowdell]

That's what you call a provocative pose?

[ocnblu]

To me it just looks like she is ready to take a poop or ski downhill competitively. I see no reason to go batty over it.

[Satty]

This is slightly more provocative.

Notice the way your eyes naturally go to the junk.

[ocnblu]

/:

[daves87rs]

Care not do I.

Yes.

It's a cover.

[mustang84]

Much ado over nothing.

[daves87rs]

[Blake Noble]

Why, it feels like I'm wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all!

[daves87rs]

Why, it feels like I'm wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all!

[regfootball]

cute as a butt-on. super cute yummy! yeah it's controversy, but would any of us had known about this weeks cover unless a controversy was created?

Edited February 7, 2010 by regfootball

[ocnblu]

cute as a butt-on. super cute yummy! yeah it's controversy, but would any of us had known about this weeks cover unless a controversy was created?

reg, I dunno about "super cute". He needs to do something with his hair.