There also needs to be a term for puritan feminists -- like maybe "puritan feminist."
I'm not quite sure about "objectification" as a term, either. Most sexual fantasies, except those involving necrophilia, assume that some kind of intersubjective encounter going on.
I didn't realize there were so many puritan blogs. I still think you're stretching it when you describe the purpose of these outfits as utilitarian (as if the IOC is unaware that sex sells). Anyway, the irony here is that it is hardly "progressive" to dictate to people what they should do.
Nice that we were both thinking "puritan," but I'd object to lumping it together with feminish. First because I don't think the quotes Ogged lists are feminist objections. But it's also too much of a contradiction in terms, like Totalitarian Anarchist.
The problem is two-fold: Women beach volleyball athletes are not allowed wear what they want to play, and the media has been completely objectifying them. So on top of being forced to wear uniforms that may be uncomfortable to play in, you have 'respectable' news organizations like Reuters snapping ass and crotch shots, the latter of which shows such a close-up that you can you'd think the picture came straight from cameltoe.com.
This isn't a matter of whether or not you're supposed to think about their bodies, it's a matter of female athletes not being allowed a choice on what they choose to wear, and the mainstream media objectifying them.
And before you call me a "puritan feminist," you should know that I'm the proud owner of a cock.
Tas, you're implying that the women are being forced to wear these uniforms against their preference. However, that is not the case in at least one instance, which Ogged linked to. (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/echidne/109332277161941320/#83350) Do you have any examples of female beach ball players bemoaning their lack of choice?
Can someone show me a link to a beach volleyball player objecting to their uniform? I don't mean that as a refutation, I really would like to see a link. (If you post about Gabby Reece being "bummed" that she doesn't get to wear her tights, I'll happily post pictures from her nude shoots, and wonder whether she's concerned about the "objectification" of the players.)
I don't care that a particular uniform is mandated: lots of sports are like that. And so far, the only comment I've seen from a player (assuming it's legit) is the Holly McPeak email I linked a while back. And she says she likes playing in the standard uniform.
At this feministe comments thread, Ron details his email correspondence with US beach volleyballer Holly McPeak. She tells him that, for the US team, at least, they are forced to wear their current skimpy uniforms. She wanted to wear something different, but she was told she couldn't.
There's still the issue of why "news" photographs have become ass and crotch shots. I can't see how that's not objectifying.
And no, apostropher, I guess it wouldn't be a disqualifying trait. However, my gender isn't easily given away by my handle, so I thought I'd clear that up right away.
tas, either you didn't follow the link you summarize or you're being less than honest: that's the same comment I linked to, and McPeak doesn't say she objects to the "skimpy" uniforms but that she usually wears a 2-piece that's custom fit for her, but the US Olympic team contracted with Nike, whose uniforms are less comfortable.
Commentators seem to be willfully misunderstanding tas here. Let us imagine some women's sport for which the following are true:
1. Players are not allowed to wear their preferred uniforms
2. Rather, they are forced to wear skimpy, suggestive uniforms
3. In addition to this, and again, not by the choice of the players, the sport gets marketed in a sexualized way
I would not have thought only feminists or puritans would see something unseemly about such a state of affairs. Not everyone wants to be forced to be a sex object as a condition of employment.
One might say "tough luck toots, that's what it's like working in the entertainment business." But that's not exactly a high-minded response.
[[Of course, the propositions above might not hold for women's volleyball. There could be no rules mandating uniforms, all the women could be model rationale choosers uninfluenced by social/economic pressures, and they could all be choosing bikinis as expressions of their own self-conception. If so, mazel tov!]]
There are rules specifying not just the general style of uniforms but also the dimensions of certain parts (can't remember the names) of the uniforms. They are specifically disallowed from covering up too much.
FWIW, the women I've spoken to say they enjoyed the men's diving and swimming competitions. The short tight speedos there didn't seem to bother them at all. And, honestly, it doesn't bother me that it doesn't bother them.
That's fine Michael. If "1" is false, a lot* of objections unravels.
*A lot, but not, I think all. One aspect of anti-liberal thought is a skepticism of "choice" that occurs in the context of a powerful (social, economic, ideological) norm. To take a homespun example, an American teen has a choice about how to dress, but we know these choices are subject to suffocating tacit pressures. 40 years ago, these pressure were different. So a question we can ask is "what pressures about dress do we, as a society, wish to teens to be subject to." One might argue that a norm of unnecessarily revealing titilating clothes on atheletes does modest atheletes a disservice, and argue further that this disservice is not parallel to that done to exhibitionists by a more conservative norm.
Well, 1 is true, according to the official rules (PDF). And yes, it could suck for a particularly modest player, and I'm sure there's motivation to make the players look sexy, but, given the need for some sort of dress code (to keep the players modest!), and the prosaic reasons I gave in my original post, it's not hard to see how the present uniform is the compromise option.
And, issues of individual choice aside, I still don't see (or haven't heard) a good explanation of why having the women dressed scantily and drooling over them is "objectifying" or otherwise objectionable.
Because it's responding to a basic biological urge present in all higher animals, honed by millions of years of evolution. Wait, that doesn't quite work.
Because admiring the bodies of people who have spent their lives working their bodies into peak physical shape is-- No, that's not it either.
Because athletics is the only institution where sex is used to promote--
Dammit, this is hard. I'm going to change the subject.
I find the beach volleyball outfits far less questionable than the pedophilic undertones that pervade women's gymnastics.
given the need for some sort of dress code (to keep the players modest!)
Please explain how specifying a maximum of 7 cm side width for the bottoms of the women's uniforms will keep anyone modest? If a player wanted immodestly to have an immodest half-centimeter side width, that would be ok according to the rules.
The rules say "maximum," but they also say that the uniform should be in the style of what's pictured, so I'm not sure that the half-centimeter side width would be allowed.
Is it bad to drool? Well, it's impolite if you're handing the young lady the gold medal, but otherwise not more objectionable oggling Tina Fey.
The question, I think, is whether it's bad to force women to tart themselves up in order to do their job. Let me go out on a limb here: yes. If that's what's taking place in women's volleyball, it's bad. Right?
As I said above, I quite understand the "tough luck, toots, it's hollywood" line. No need for sighs.
But of course, we get to decide what hollywood requires in each case. I don't think it's a particularly admirable for us to endorse a state of affairs where woman are required to sexually market themselves in order to do a job. If do a job = make customers like the service/product you provide = entertainment = take it off, baby!, then I think you have proved too much.
The important thing is choice. Athletes should be allowed to wear what they want. The beach volleyball rules that indicate a "maximum" width are about requiring athletes to dress a certain way for sex appeal. Athletes who want to dress more modestly can't play. That seems objectionable. This situation is much different from swimmers and divers who wear certain outfits for performance reasons.
im doin a project for college on your topic about beach vollyball and the fact that women wear indecent clothing for sex appeal in sport. n was wondering where you found information on that there is a rule in volleyball about a "maxium" width?? wat is that
Laura, just scroll up in this dialog to the place where ogged links to the olympic committee rules for beach volleyball. Page 40 gives rules for the women's uniform.
Try a visit to the governing body's website. The uniforms are consistent enough that they are clearly mandated. If you can't find the complete rules on their website, a phone call to the governing body might get you a copy of the rules faster than hours searching the web. If you talk to them, you might ask for phone numbers of women coaches or players, who you could interview for the project. It's sometimes amazing how much a few interiews can help you organize and interpret the printed material you find.
hey cw thanks for ur help but do u mean the link (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/echidne) i went on it and it doesnt work n wen i shortened it to just www.haloscan.com it work and i logged in but wasnt able to find anything. do you have any other web sites or nubers of the governing bodies that i could call. thanks again
I think drooling is the problem, actually.
Posted by AkiZ | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 5:25 PM
Hm. That's a good point.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 5:27 PM
There also needs to be a term for puritan feminists -- like maybe "puritan feminist."
I'm not quite sure about "objectification" as a term, either. Most sexual fantasies, except those involving necrophilia, assume that some kind of intersubjective encounter going on.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 6:01 PM
I didn't realize there were so many puritan blogs. I still think you're stretching it when you describe the purpose of these outfits as utilitarian (as if the IOC is unaware that sex sells). Anyway, the irony here is that it is hardly "progressive" to dictate to people what they should do.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 6:02 PM
Adamn,
Nice that we were both thinking "puritan," but I'd object to lumping it together with feminish. First because I don't think the quotes Ogged lists are feminist objections. But it's also too much of a contradiction in terms, like Totalitarian Anarchist.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 6:04 PM
Whatever. Like there aren't any women tuning in for the Lycra contest.
There also needs to be a term for puritan feminists
Cirinists.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 6:45 PM
Crap, dude. He should meet the gymnast from Bob's post.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 6:51 PM
How many points are awarded for teabagging?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 7:02 PM
Thanks guys. This is just the sort of intelligent defense of the "feminist" stance I was looking for.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 7:39 PM
The problem is two-fold: Women beach volleyball athletes are not allowed wear what they want to play, and the media has been completely objectifying them. So on top of being forced to wear uniforms that may be uncomfortable to play in, you have 'respectable' news organizations like Reuters snapping ass and crotch shots, the latter of which shows such a close-up that you can you'd think the picture came straight from cameltoe.com.
This isn't a matter of whether or not you're supposed to think about their bodies, it's a matter of female athletes not being allowed a choice on what they choose to wear, and the mainstream media objectifying them.
And before you call me a "puritan feminist," you should know that I'm the proud owner of a cock.
Posted by tas | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 11:08 PM
Tas, you're implying that the women are being forced to wear these uniforms against their preference. However, that is not the case in at least one instance, which Ogged linked to. (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/echidne/109332277161941320/#83350) Do you have any examples of female beach ball players bemoaning their lack of choice?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 11:22 PM
Can someone show me a link to a beach volleyball player objecting to their uniform? I don't mean that as a refutation, I really would like to see a link. (If you post about Gabby Reece being "bummed" that she doesn't get to wear her tights, I'll happily post pictures from her nude shoots, and wonder whether she's concerned about the "objectification" of the players.)
I don't care that a particular uniform is mandated: lots of sports are like that. And so far, the only comment I've seen from a player (assuming it's legit) is the Holly McPeak email I linked a while back. And she says she likes playing in the standard uniform.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 11:22 PM
before you call me a "puritan feminist," you should know that I'm the proud owner of a cock.
Is that a disqualifying trait?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-30-04 11:34 PM
At this feministe comments thread, Ron details his email correspondence with US beach volleyballer Holly McPeak. She tells him that, for the US team, at least, they are forced to wear their current skimpy uniforms. She wanted to wear something different, but she was told she couldn't.
There's still the issue of why "news" photographs have become ass and crotch shots. I can't see how that's not objectifying.
And no, apostropher, I guess it wouldn't be a disqualifying trait. However, my gender isn't easily given away by my handle, so I thought I'd clear that up right away.
Posted by tas | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:15 AM
tas, either you didn't follow the link you summarize or you're being less than honest: that's the same comment I linked to, and McPeak doesn't say she objects to the "skimpy" uniforms but that she usually wears a 2-piece that's custom fit for her, but the US Olympic team contracted with Nike, whose uniforms are less comfortable.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 8:35 AM
tas,
The Olympics is news? I thought it was entertainment.
Of course, it is both. And beach volleyball has chosen to combine sport with entertainment, including titillation.
My Mom has said for years she likes watching pro football because of the cute butts. Should we change those costumes, too?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 8:45 AM
Commentators seem to be willfully misunderstanding tas here. Let us imagine some women's sport for which the following are true:
1. Players are not allowed to wear their preferred uniforms
2. Rather, they are forced to wear skimpy, suggestive uniforms
3. In addition to this, and again, not by the choice of the players, the sport gets marketed in a sexualized way
I would not have thought only feminists or puritans would see something unseemly about such a state of affairs. Not everyone wants to be forced to be a sex object as a condition of employment.
One might say "tough luck toots, that's what it's like working in the entertainment business." But that's not exactly a high-minded response.
[[Of course, the propositions above might not hold for women's volleyball. There could be no rules mandating uniforms, all the women could be model rationale choosers uninfluenced by social/economic pressures, and they could all be choosing bikinis as expressions of their own self-conception. If so, mazel tov!]]
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 9:24 AM
There are rules specifying not just the general style of uniforms but also the dimensions of certain parts (can't remember the names) of the uniforms. They are specifically disallowed from covering up too much.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 9:28 AM
FWIW, the women I've spoken to say they enjoyed the men's diving and swimming competitions. The short tight speedos there didn't seem to bother them at all. And, honestly, it doesn't bother me that it doesn't bother them.
Posted by TedL | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 10:43 AM
baa, I think the point of some of our comments is that we are questioning whether your #1 has a basis in reality.
Anyway, I'm with tas now. Let the players wear what they want; I want to see Brazilian hotties in g strings.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 12:42 PM
That's fine Michael. If "1" is false, a lot* of objections unravels.
*A lot, but not, I think all. One aspect of anti-liberal thought is a skepticism of "choice" that occurs in the context of a powerful (social, economic, ideological) norm. To take a homespun example, an American teen has a choice about how to dress, but we know these choices are subject to suffocating tacit pressures. 40 years ago, these pressure were different. So a question we can ask is "what pressures about dress do we, as a society, wish to teens to be subject to." One might argue that a norm of unnecessarily revealing titilating clothes on atheletes does modest atheletes a disservice, and argue further that this disservice is not parallel to that done to exhibitionists by a more conservative norm.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 1:12 PM
Well, 1 is true, according to the official rules (PDF). And yes, it could suck for a particularly modest player, and I'm sure there's motivation to make the players look sexy, but, given the need for some sort of dress code (to keep the players modest!), and the prosaic reasons I gave in my original post, it's not hard to see how the present uniform is the compromise option.
And, issues of individual choice aside, I still don't see (or haven't heard) a good explanation of why having the women dressed scantily and drooling over them is "objectifying" or otherwise objectionable.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 1:40 PM
Because it's responding to a basic biological urge present in all higher animals, honed by millions of years of evolution. Wait, that doesn't quite work.
Because admiring the bodies of people who have spent their lives working their bodies into peak physical shape is-- No, that's not it either.
Because athletics is the only institution where sex is used to promote--
Dammit, this is hard. I'm going to change the subject.
I find the beach volleyball outfits far less questionable than the pedophilic undertones that pervade women's gymnastics.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:06 PM
I think we can all agree that "women's" gymnastics is gross.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:08 PM
given the need for some sort of dress code (to keep the players modest!)
Please explain how specifying a maximum of 7 cm side width for the bottoms of the women's uniforms will keep anyone modest? If a player wanted immodestly to have an immodest half-centimeter side width, that would be ok according to the rules.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:29 PM
The rules say "maximum," but they also say that the uniform should be in the style of what's pictured, so I'm not sure that the half-centimeter side width would be allowed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:31 PM
Is it bad to drool? Well, it's impolite if you're handing the young lady the gold medal, but otherwise not more objectionable oggling Tina Fey.
The question, I think, is whether it's bad to force women to tart themselves up in order to do their job. Let me go out on a limb here: yes. If that's what's taking place in women's volleyball, it's bad. Right?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:33 PM
Sigh again. Depending on the job, I think it is fine to require women to tart themselves up. This pertains especially to the entertainment industry.
For example, an actor portraying a tart might be expected to tart herself up. A stripper might be expected to strip.
The problem you seem to be having is that beach volleyball is part sport and part entertainment. Would you be okay if it wasn't in the Olympics?
For extra points, did you know the Iranian gymnast competed fully covered? Unfortunately, it was in the 10 meter air pistol category.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:43 PM
Tripp,
As I said above, I quite understand the "tough luck, toots, it's hollywood" line. No need for sighs.
But of course, we get to decide what hollywood requires in each case. I don't think it's a particularly admirable for us to endorse a state of affairs where woman are required to sexually market themselves in order to do a job. If do a job = make customers like the service/product you provide = entertainment = take it off, baby!, then I think you have proved too much.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-31-04 2:55 PM
baa,
You claim it is not admirable to endorse women 'sexually marketing themselves'.
Why not?
If someone is beautiful and likes to show off and get paid for it, what is un-admirable about that?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 09- 1-04 10:26 AM
The important thing is choice. Athletes should be allowed to wear what they want. The beach volleyball rules that indicate a "maximum" width are about requiring athletes to dress a certain way for sex appeal. Athletes who want to dress more modestly can't play. That seems objectionable. This situation is much different from swimmers and divers who wear certain outfits for performance reasons.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 3:55 PM
hey joe O,
im doin a project for college on your topic about beach vollyball and the fact that women wear indecent clothing for sex appeal in sport. n was wondering where you found information on that there is a rule in volleyball about a "maxium" width?? wat is that
im having a reall hard time finding info bout it
plz help me out
thanks laura
Posted by laura t | Link to this comment | 02- 6-05 9:04 AM
Laura, just scroll up in this dialog to the place where ogged links to the olympic committee rules for beach volleyball. Page 40 gives rules for the women's uniform.
Try a visit to the governing body's website. The uniforms are consistent enough that they are clearly mandated. If you can't find the complete rules on their website, a phone call to the governing body might get you a copy of the rules faster than hours searching the web. If you talk to them, you might ask for phone numbers of women coaches or players, who you could interview for the project. It's sometimes amazing how much a few interiews can help you organize and interpret the printed material you find.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02- 6-05 9:37 AM
hey cw thanks for ur help but do u mean the link (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/echidne) i went on it and it doesnt work n wen i shortened it to just www.haloscan.com it work and i logged in but wasnt able to find anything. do you have any other web sites or nubers of the governing bodies that i could call. thanks again
laura
Posted by laura t | Link to this comment | 02-19-05 3:25 PM
Laura, click here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-19-05 3:28 PM
thank u so much ogged that is such a huge help. thanks so much.
Posted by laura t | Link to this comment | 02-20-05 6:26 AM
I was hoping to get information regarding the rules of women's volleyball uniforms, any suggestions?:
Posted by stephanie | Link to this comment | 03-24-05 1:03 PM
I think people like Gabby Reece playing nude volleyball.
would live-in things up & give volleyball a great ratings boost.
robsta
Posted by robsta | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 1:18 PM