Sexualization of Women’s Sports

 

Like many people, I have grown up watching gymnastics on TV, and I’ve always admired the strength and agility of the girls and young women. My attention was especially triggered by the latest controversy regarding the sexual abuse of the American Women’s Olympic team. Most of them were teenagers, not even through puberty, and I didn’t give any thought to their uniforms. It didn’t cross my mind that their choice of uniforms had anything to do with the abuse, and it still doesn’t.

But about a year ago, I saw a floor performance that made me very uncomfortable. The gymnast was a full-blown, mature-bodied woman, and her routine was sexy and (I thought) provocative. I watched the whole routine with a level of perplexity and discomfort, not understanding my reaction. Ever since then, I have questioned the appropriateness of woman’s gymnastic uniforms, and still don’t feel resolved about it.

A couple of years ago, some women from the German gymnastics team decided to make a change in their uniforms to a full body suit:

Per reports, the German Gymnastics Association (DTB) said the outfit change — which Sarah Voss started, followed by her teammates Kim Bui and Elisabeth Seitz — was done to take a stand against sexualization in the sport.

‘We hope gymnasts uncomfortable in the usual outfits will feel emboldened to follow our example,’ Voss told the BBC.

According to BBC, Bui, 32, initially performed in a leotard on Wednesday for the qualifying round. But after seeing Voss, 21, debut a full-body suit, both Bui and Seitz, 27, swapped outfits for the women’s all-around final on Friday.

Of course, the outfits still show nearly every nook, curve, and cranny, but the women are almost fully covered.

But not everyone is happy with changing women’s uniforms:

It’s 2021, but the policing of female athletes’ bodies is a practice that continues to thrive.

The Norwegian women’s beach handball team is in a battle with the sport’s governing bodies to wear less-revealing uniforms. After the team’s repeated complaints about the required bikini bottoms were reportedly ignored, they wore shorts during a recent game in protest and were fined 150 euros (around $175) per player.

Other women’s sports are having these conversations, too.

I realize that opinions about the exposure of women’s bodies depends on the setting: is she in a full bathing suit on the beach? A bikini thong at the pool? Does it matter how old or young she is? Does it matter if she’s appearing as a performer, or a movie star at a movie premiere?

I was intrigued by a candid and well-written article composed by a teenager for her school newspaper:

In the 20th century, efforts were made towards the feminist movement that highlighted how differently women are viewed and treated in the sporting community compared to men. Some athletes claim they were rejected from certain sporting opportunities because their bodies didn’t look ‘efficient enough.’ Doing so goes against Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which states, ‘No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.’

Sports should be open to and equal for everyone. All genders should be viewed based on their athletic ability, not appearance or a strict dress code like the one females are obligated to follow. These dress codes currently being enforced should be optional; females should be able to compete in what they feel most comfortable in.

A woman should have the opportunity to choose what coverage and modesty that she wants to adhere to. These decisions should be made by the athlete.

Now there’s a word that has most definitely gone out of fashion: modesty. Does anyone care about dressing modestly anymore?

Or am I too old-fashioned and must accept that just about “anything goes”?

Published in Sports
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 75 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
    Was looked on as something shocking
    But now, God knows
    Anything goes

    One Night (1934). Claudette Colbert & Clark Gable. Claudette is the one with the gams.

    There’s at least 2 reasons why she was a star!

     

    Too thin. But I suppose back then, even exposed toothpicks was VA VA VOOM!!!

    Too thin? Toothpicks? Really?

     

    Still kinda thin, but what years were those photos taken?

    Guys, don’t you think you’ve milked this one to death?

    • #61
  2. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
    Was looked on as something shocking
    But now, God knows
    Anything goes

    One Night (1934). Claudette Colbert & Clark Gable. Claudette is the one with the gams.

    There’s at least 2 reasons why she was a star!

     

    Too thin. But I suppose back then, even exposed toothpicks was VA VA VOOM!!!

    Too thin? Toothpicks? Really?

     

    Still kinda thin, but what years were those photos taken?

    Guys, don’t you think you’ve milked this one to death?

    Not possible.

    • #62
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    Not possible.

    [smacks palm on forehead] What was I thinking??

    • #63
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
    Was looked on as something shocking
    But now, God knows
    Anything goes

    One Night (1934). Claudette Colbert & Clark Gable. Claudette is the one with the gams.

    There’s at least 2 reasons why she was a star!

     

    Too thin. But I suppose back then, even exposed toothpicks was VA VA VOOM!!!

    Too thin? Toothpicks? Really?

     

    Still kinda thin, but what years were those photos taken?

    Guys, don’t you think you’ve milked this one to death?

    First legs, now…

    • #64
  5. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    Not possible.

    [smacks palm on forehead] What was I thinking??

    Indeed.  You even included the pictures. (:

    • #65
  6. Podkayne of Israel Inactive
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Nothing new – this is from a National Lampoon bit in 1977 [language warning]

    A childhood classic

    • #66
  7. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
    Was looked on as something shocking
    But now, God knows
    Anything goes

    One Night (1934). Claudette Colbert & Clark Gable. Claudette is the one with the gams.

    There’s at least 2 reasons why she was a star!

     

    Too thin. But I suppose back then, even exposed toothpicks was VA VA VOOM!!!

    Too thin? Toothpicks? Really?

     

    Still kinda thin, but what years were those photos taken?

    Guys, don’t you think you’ve milked this one to death?

    Thank you!  (Now I don’t have to tell anyone it was possibly before I was born.)

    • #67
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Guys, don’t you think you’ve milked this one to death?

    You’re right. Best to move on.

    Claudette Colbert, Cleopatra,  also 1934.

    • #68
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    There is certainly a lot of sex appeal in the wider appeal of women’s sports, and it gets downright creepy as the mere larvae are sexualized just because they are expected to be famous.

    I view it as a distillation of the disparity (not itself a problem, just a fact) that when men dress to find a mate (a species’ Prime Directive, if you will), they project resource domination and protection i.e., these resources will be available to — and preserved for — you and your offspring, girl, whereas when women dress to find a mate, they project a monopoly on a specific set of fertility and child-bearing/rearing fitness assets (no snickering), i.e., these physical attributes are the best for producing and sustaining your offspring, bub.  Give natural selection some time to work, and we find each other attractive based on these projections (whether clothing, reputation, status, or the actual goods themselves).   The clothing makes not only the man — it makes the woman and the whole relationship.

    The problem arises when various societal norms which literally evolved to indicate a non-nubile status (pigtails, tomboy, no make-up, affiliation with father’s sense of daughter’s modesty) are thrown out the window.

    War is primal.  Chimps do it.  Reproduction is primal.  Even Placozoans might do it.  Getting something for nothing is primal.

    Primal things do not leave us, but are placed in better cages to the extent that a social species finds it useful.  Ants are so very social that they are literal clones, and will self-sacrifice for the good of the colony — but they still fight to survive except in limited circumstances, or there would be no colony.

    I for one appreciate our new pole-vaulting overlords, and find women’s beach volleyball endlessly fascinating even despite the lamentable lack of worm clothing.  Are there no coffeehouses?  You know what I wouldn’t watch?  Under-aged girls’ beach volleyball, because that’s different, or else there’s no future for us.

    Perhaps under-aged girls’ gymnastics programs should carry on-screen banners and repeated warnings that MOST OF THESE GIRLS ARE UNDERAGED.  Or maybe — just maybe — they should wear something which allows them a bit more modesty.  I agree with you, particularly on the larval score.  We specifically do not hold by-definition “under-aged” people capable of making binding decisions about adult matters.  That’s the whole point.  Modesty as a requirement imposed from above is one of the things that makes society work to begin with.

    For the last decade, even women’s college athletics if scantily clad has looked like *the wrong answer*.  Well, fair enough.  A “robust” appreciation of fertility and fitness markers has always been a trait which is for more adaptive in those younger than my (now) self.  So there’s probably an evo-bio reason for my increasing PUT SOME CLOTHES ON attitude toward it all.

    As @ejhill noted:

    • #69
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Also, in the movie “Stick It,” one of the characters notes, “It’s not called gym-NICE-tics!”

     

    Meanwhile…

     

    • #70
  11. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    BDB (View Comment):
    I view it as a distillation of the disparity (not itself a problem, just a fact) that when men dress to find a mate (a species’ Prime Directive, if you will), they project resource domination and protection i.e., these resources will be available to — and preserved for — you and your offspring, girl, whereas when women dress to find a mate, they project a monopoly on a specific set of fertility and child-bearing/rearing fitness assets (no snickering), i.e., these physical attributes are the best for producing and sustaining your offspring, bub.  Give natural selection some time to work, and we find each other attractive based on these projections (whether clothing, reputation, status, or the actual goods themselves).   The clothing makes not only the man — it makes the woman and the whole relationship.

    • #71
  12. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    BDB (View Comment):
    A “robust” appreciation of fertility and fitness markers has always been a trait which is for more adaptive in those younger than my (now) self.

    Yet that appreciation is still there after several decades!

    That’s what the “male gaze” is – some circuit in our brains is always evaluating whether a female we’re looking at could make us babies.

    • #72
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    A “robust” appreciation of fertility and fitness markers has always been a trait which is for more adaptive in those younger than my (now) self.

    Yet that appreciation is still there after several decades!

    That’s what the “male gaze” is – some circuit in our brains is always evaluating whether a female we’re looking at could make us babies.

    Yup.  Born that way, so step off, Lefty.

    • #73
  14. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    BDB (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    A “robust” appreciation of fertility and fitness markers has always been a trait which is for more adaptive in those younger than my (now) self.

    Yet that appreciation is still there after several decades!

    That’s what the “male gaze” is – some circuit in our brains is always evaluating whether a female we’re looking at could make us babies.

    Yup. Born that way, so step off, Lefty.

    I see what you did there.

    • #74
  15. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I view it as a distillation of the disparity (not itself a problem, just a fact) that when men dress to find a mate (a species’ Prime Directive, if you will), they project resource domination and protection i.e., these resources will be available to — and preserved for — you and your offspring, girl, whereas when women dress to find a mate, they project a monopoly on a specific set of fertility and child-bearing/rearing fitness assets (no snickering), i.e., these physical attributes are the best for producing and sustaining your offspring, bub. Give natural selection some time to work, and we find each other attractive based on these projections (whether clothing, reputation, status, or the actual goods themselves). The clothing makes not only the man — it makes the woman and the whole relationship.

     

    Just nabbed the Audiobook.  Thank you!

    • #75
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.