Alex Morgan in SI Swimsuit issue

There is something wrong with it because unlike the ESPN body issue which is gender-neutral and not overtly sexual, the SI swimsuit edition intentionally sexualizes women. That said, however, there's still probably no such thing as bad publicity for the USWNT, and since most people (including many women) don't have a problem with this kind of thing it will just be another useful headline.

 

It's not all good, no. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

It's whatever she wants to do with her body to attract men and women to women's soccer but I hate magazines that sexualize women as objects and don't even offer any information about what a great athlete she is or who she really is.

On that page, she looks like one of a million pretty faces to a lot of men and that's it.

What does that do to change anything about this sport? Nothing! Absolutely Nothing!

As for the Beckham in underwear commercial I watched the behind the scenes, the still photography shoot and the actual commercial over 50 times and I can honestly say it's not the same. At least he's respected in his sport, Alex Morgan and a lot of other women don't even have a professional league anymore, that's how much respect they get.....

 

Well I know women that their favorite part of watching Football (NFL type) is that they get to see men in tight spandex. This sexuality works both ways.

 

From my perspective, which is more aligned with that of traditional, and indeed "old-school", feminism, Beckham's ad and the SI swimsuit edition are not entirely analogous. To keep this conversation narrow and not range into larger societal disparities, premier male athletes still have far more opportunities to turn on-field success into off-field branding strategies than do premier female athletes, and to create personas that let them transcend their sports fanbase. Beckham has been exceptionally, powerfully good at this. He's a good player and a good-looking man and has used those gifts to build a small marketing empire. Now, with the underwear, he's got a product to sell and he chooses to showcase his body in order to sell it. I think it's debatable whether he ought to do so, but without even going down that path I think we've already seen sufficient deviation from the SI swimsuit situation.

With the SI swimsuit situation, we have female models selected for display on the basis of their physical attractiveness. They've got no product to sell but their looks, and men who buy the magazine are not generally interested in the models' lives or careers outside of modeling. (With female fans of Beckham's body, I do think there is at least some interest in he and Victoria's lives and careers outside of modeling, and that accounts for much of the appeal of seeing him in underwear; there are lots of male underwear models, but there's only one David Beckham.) I'm a straight male, and I won't lie, Alex Morgan is attractive. But I want her to be recognized for what she does on the soccer field, not how she looks. The ESPN body issue walked that line with Hope Solo, and even if we acknowledge that Hope was chosen for that because she, too, is traditionally good-looking, we might at least say that she was not being treated too differently from her male counterparts and that her identity as an athlete was not being diminished in favor of mere attractiveness.

You're right, we're not living in the 50s, and these things are not as clear-cut as they are in Mad Men. At the same time, I think that our awareness of just how differently men and women are treated in the media has actually gotten worse since the high tide of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. Admittedly, one advantage we have today over that time period is that there is a much wider diversity of opinion on this kind of issue, and that's never a bad thing. It's certainly possible to believe, as you do and as perhaps Alex herself does, that the SI swimsuit edition is perfectly harmless and does not carry some great meaning about the status of female athletes or women's position in society writ large. But as a man, a fan, a feminist, and a historian with an interest in this kind of thing, I see it as something more insidious. If Alex formed a lingerie company and wanted to model her products herself during the Super Bowl I think I'd feel differently, or would at least have different criticisms.

 

That's definitely my wife's attitude.

 

In women's tennis, they market looks and the sport together. Further, this is part of an intentional marketing approach. And even further, the intention is part of the WTA's policy. So in that sport, the women themselves are doing it intentionally. The two are, however, linked together.

 

And unlike women's tennis, where there are quite a few players making big bucks, women's soccer players are not getting rich off of their playing careers. That isn't going to change anytime soon, so why shouldn't Alex market herself any way she sees fit? Most of the people who don't respect women soccer players as athletes will always find a reason not to. Posing in a swimsuit is not the reason women soccer players aren't getting respect.

 

Beauty, eh?



I know this is a serious discussion, but I couldn't help myself.

I agree that women should not have to rely on good looks to get their sports noticed. I believe that there is a lot of objectifying and debasing of women now (MTV, Two and a Half Men, et al.) that is even worse than when Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan were leaders of the modern women's movement.

Alex and Hope are following this path: sport - fame - good looks - sports illustrated - more fame - more money. Neither appearance in the magazine is for promoting women's soccer; it is for self promotion (and good for them).

 

female athletes have been held up as sex symbols since the 60s

 

The only female athletes that don't get sexualized are Olympic Gymnasts. They get put on a box of Wheaties and get promoted for their talent and athleticism not because how great they look.

And I guess considering half of the great Gymnasts peak when they're 16 years old, it might be considered perverted anyways to gawk over them.

 

with a few exceptions of course

 

As a 50-something heterosexual male (and admittedly, the quintessential "dirty old man") I must confess that I thought Alex looked much sexier getting her 2 goals and 2 assists against Canada the other day. Sexy is no longer standing around looking beautiful. And although Miss Morgan does this extremely well, to me her true beauty comes from what she does and how she looks DOING IT.

I say that, if her posing in SI makes some guy who would otherwise not care about Women's soccer drive out to the FC Dallas Stadium to see her in person, then I'm all for it.

 

Uufortunately, the chances of that happening are slim.

 

Running to the mailbox now!

 

Just followed some links to see this, and wasn't overly impressed with what I saw. Was the body paint supposed to be sexy?

So who's next in line next for the naked meat treatment, Leroux?

 

Marta

 

Come on now, I know your no novice to the game of football or the popular women playing it right now. You could have done better than Marta if you wanted to be facetious .

Seriously though, the more salacious parts of the US media are desperate to get the U.S. girls naked, instantly claiming it's so empowering. LOL, like seeing the girls charging around the field for 90 mins stopped the guys I watched WWC games with from saying "Ohhh she's hot" every close up on any player slightly attractive .

I'm not part of the Morgan fan club, but after seeing a pic from the SI photo shoot, I personally think she looks better with her uniform on.

 

only the fanboys would go nuts over this. frankly, i'd prefer heather mitts.



it's just not close.

 

I agree. She also has beautiful natural features that become too muted when she's overcaked in makeup. SI has been doing this "painted on" swimsuit gimmick since the 90s. They're just covered in a layer of paint rather than thin material. Hardly risque and not as sexy or stylish as they probably would like to think.

As for being oversexualized? Well not for me anyway. It's pretty tame and sterile by today's standards. SI has had oodles of famous people featured in their swimsuit issues, including famous sportsmen and women with their wives/husbands in pictorials together. People will have different and individual impressions of what constitutes a woman being too objectified. Nowadays SI Swimsuit issues are quite conservative on the sexual objectification spectrum. FHM and Maxim men's magazines obviously sexualize the women in their pictorials much more even though they're not nude. And there aren't many established young attractive actresses or musicians that haven't been in at least one of them. Then of course you have athletes like Amanda Beard that pose for Playboy. Then you have Europe which is off the charts compared to America. I can't begin to imagine what some posters here think of the German U20 women football team's Playboy appearance last year in the lead up to the WC. For me SI swimsuit issues are just women in swimsuits. There's seldom any suggestiveness and the famous non swimsuit models that are featured in them are rarely depicted being flirtatious. Funnily enough the swimsuits worn in the 80s were probably more indiscreet because the bikini bottoms and one piece suits had a higher cut to make the legs look longer. As for Alex Morgan ... just in my opinion ... but like Batfink I think there are many pics of her in soccer kit that are "sexier" and more appealing than this. The pic Alex has on her twitter is about 1000x sexier. Amount of skin shown =/= sexy.