Come for the Porn, Stay for the Volleyball

According to something I read on Yahoo!, the 2012 London games have been called "the women's Olympics."  They've also been called, by media critics, a lackluster performance by NBC Sports and, by me, "Frieda."  But that doesn't matter.

Anyway, this Olympics has certainly featured some breakthroughs for female athletes.  Record-setting performances!  Foxy boxing!

The first-ever Olympic appearance by a female Saudi Arabian!  (Sadly, in the diving competition and wearing a burqa, but still. . . .)  But in a clear case of two 100-meter dashes forward and one unstuck landing back, these games have also featured some shameful examples of blatant misogyny--and I'm not referring to the continued existence of rhythmic gymnastics as a medal "sport."  (Whose conclusion was it that plasticine women frolicking on a mat while playing with a ball represented an advance for the cause of women's athletics?)

No, I refer to "Bodies in Motion," a video celebrating female Olympians that was hastily pulled from NBC's website when someone pointed out that the video looks more like softcore porn than a tribute to athleticism.  Many people took offense at the video's apparent objectification of the female form.  Having, in the spirit of investigative journalism, watched the video myself, I have to agree: This video clearly presents numerous images of female athletes as sexually-desirable women.

And what exactly is the problem with that?

No, seriously!  Look, one could point out that, up until not too long ago, the words "female athlete" conjured for many people the image of a stocky field-hockey player or Martina Navratilova.  And I'm not taking anything away from Martina, perhaps the greatest female tennis player of all time, but couldn't it be seen as something of a step forward that female athletes can be seen as both highly skilled and attractive?  And for what it's worth, women have been "objectifying" male athletes for quite some time.  I remember MOS gawping over Jim Palmer and Bjorn Borg and Jim Plunkett (yeah, I don't get that last one, either).

The bottom line (slight pun intended) is this: Athletes, male and female, devote themselves to the highest level of achievement in their sports and, by extension, the greatest level of perfection of their bodies.  Audiences cheer the athletic achievements and derive--have always derived--aesthetic pleasure from gazing on physical beauty.  It's simple human nature.  And what's wrong with that?