SC photo shoot pictures- from "V" Magazine

registered said:

OK, if you say so. But wouldn't it be much more "lady like" to simply decline Stern's invitation? Didn't MK know what his "talk show" is all about? Just imagine for a second how many people were saddened and turned off by such display of immodesty, and anti-role model behavior.

Well, I'm just pulling your leg here. Personally, I'm at peace with MK's choices, and I fully trust her judgment, on what's the best for her. She had a gig on that show -- fine, great for her. We all entitled to have fun ones in a while, and she's no different from anyone else in that aspect.

Click to expand...

Even though you are "pulling our legs" with your comments about MK's appearance on Howard Stern's show, it really wasn't a "gig" that she was booked for in advance. Howard Stern set up an interview area backstage of the 1998 Blockbuster Video awards (at which Michelle was a presenter) and was getting interviews with various people as they left the stage. Michelle was with Sarah Michelle Gellar for the segment -- and from my vague memory of it, I think she managed to deflect Howard's crude/lewd remarks remarkably well -- and handled the whole situation with a lot of good humor.

skatingfan5 said:

Even though you are "pulling our legs" with your comments about MK's appearance on Howard Stern's show, it really wasn't a "gig" that she was booked for in advance. Howard Stern set up an interview area backstage of the 1998 Blockbuster Video awards (at which Michelle was a presenter) and was getting interviews with various people as they left the stage. Michelle was with Sarah Michelle Gellar for the segment -- and from my vague memory of it, I think she managed to deflect Howard's crude/lewd remarks remarkably well -- and handled the whole situation with a lot of good humor.

Click to expand...

Still, damage done by her appearance to the sport of figure skating could be incalculable. Imagine all those, who now think that skating=Howard Stern's "dirty talk" show. And what about millions of impressionable young women, who now suffer from low self-esteem? (I'll bet you, Girl Scouts are not happy about it.)

registered said:

Still, damage done by her appearance to the sport of figure skating could be incalculable. Imagine all those, who now think that skating=Howard Stern's "dirty talk" show. And what about millions of impressionable young women, who now suffer from low self-esteem? (I'll bet you, Girl Scouts are not happy about it.)

Click to expand...

As a former Girl Scout, I'm happy to say that Michelle definitely exemplified the motto of "be prepared" in how she handled her encounter with "dirty old man" Howard Stern. Quick wit and class win out over vulgar and crass. Give that girl a merit badge.

skatingfan5 said:

As a former Girl Scout, I'm happy to say that Michelle definitely exemplified the motto of "be prepared" in how she handled her encounter with "dirty old man" Howard Stern. Quick wit and class win out over vulgar and crass. Give that girl a merit badge.

Click to expand...

Can we say than, that there's a double standard adopted by Girl Scouts towards willing, "consenting adults" encounters with "dirty old men," when they're initiated by Michelle Kwan? On a contrary, much milder incidents, involving other skaters (especially if they're a threat to MK ), are not so easily excused.

registered said:

On a contrary, much milder incidents, involving other skaters (especially if they're a threat to MK ), are not so easily excused.

Click to expand...

Huh? It's clear we're not speaking the same language -- in either tone or meaning. I have no idea what mild or otherwise consensual encounters with "dirty old men" you are referring to, and can only guess that they involve Sasha, since she was the original subject of this thread before Michelle was mentioned. As to the original subject, I think that r-girl, kathy, and dorispulaski pretty well summarized my feelings -- and they were mainly elicited by photograph #1 with its shoes most clearly NOT made for walking. All I have to say on the subject.

skatingfan5 said:

Michelle definitely exemplified the motto of "be prepared" in how she handled her encounter with "dirty old man" Howard Stern.

Click to expand...

This is a willing encounter, I'm referring to. (And HS's show ain't meant for intellectuals.)

Double "Huh??" I understood what MK encounter you were referring to -- just not what were the "much milder incidents, involving other skaters" you alluded to. It would seem miscommunication between us is inevitable, and thus further attempts at discussion rather pointless.

If you really want to see Sasha looking beautiful and sexy, check this out. (I like the one of her standing on an ice cube in green.)

http://www.sashacohen.com/studioshots.shtml

Mathman

Michelle was ambushed into that interview. She is a good role model for young girls, because no one can escape from ambush all the time, but she did not let Stern turned it into something sleazy. If she walked away from it totally, the same Kwan haters will criticize her too.

LOL, after all these years of living in the fish bowl with people nit picking every word, and move, this is all her detractors can come up with?

I think Michelle kicks the Kwan haters butts again.

Wow. Miss a day on this thread and you come back to find all kinds of stuff going on! First of all, to dispense with the MK/Howard Stern thing, which I have on tape and remember quite clearly having been a huge Howard fan since he first came on the air in NY. Skatingfan5 is basically right that Howard Stern set up an interview area backstage at the '98 Blockbuster Video Awards. Still, guests or their agents had to be approached either in advance or the night of the awards, "booked," sign release forms, and in Michelle's case, since she was only 17 at the time, she would have had to have an adult sign for her. So either her agent, one of her parents, or somebody who had the authority to do so was the one who allowed Michelle to go on Howard's Blockbuster Awards interview show. Also, lest we forget Michelle was not only just 17 at the time but also a rather sheltered 17-year-old. No diss to Michelle, she was just that like a lot of young elite athletes who'd been brought up concentrating on training and prvately tutored. It was abundantely clear to me that when Michelle and adult guardians were approached to be on the "Howard Stern Talk Show," neither Michelle nor the adults had any idea who Howard Stern was nor what his show was like. They probably heard "talk show" and thought Leno or Oprah. Sorry to say this Mathman and I don't mean to imply that Michelle did anything wrong, but in no way did Michelle "kick Howard Stern's butt." Nor did she come off as "the very model of ladylike decorum in a situation that would have proven difficult for many a more experienced celebrity to cope with." Unlike Michelle, many a more experienced celebrity KNOWS what Howard Stern is all about and having watched the E! show for about 10 years, most of them come away saying, "Everyone told me he would be mean and he wasn't at all. It was fun." But these are either older celebs or preternaturally mature Hollywood teens. I'm not saying Michelle was bad or embarrassed herself in any way. It's just that the way you and a couple of others describe things, it sounds as if Michelle was the one in control and handled things with finesse, grace, wit, and aplomb whereas in fact Michelle looked aghast and agog throughout and said nary a word except, "Oh, my God!" Her mouth kept gaping open in shock as Stern and Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was only about 18 or 19 at the time, exchanged most of the sexual innunedo banter typical of Stern's show and in fact as someone else said, Stern backed off MK after a few typical Howard remarks ("I love figure skating because you get to see the girls' panties") when it was clear that Michelle was not a Hollywood "adult" sophisticated 17-year-old but an embarrassed, "What is going on?!" 17-year-old. While Howard will go always go in for the kill with an equal adversary, the man has three daughters of his own, two of whom were in their early teens in '98, and I've never seen him try to embarrass anyone who wasn't in on and up for his style of humor.

Gotta describe Michelle's appearance on that show as a mistake on the part of whomever Michelle's agent or adult guardian was at the Blockbuster Awards and Michelle's behavior as an exceptionally innocent teen who basically had a deer-in-the-headlights demeanor. It was Stern who stopped all sexually suggestive remarks toward and questions of Michelle after it became clear that her reactions were no act. Also Sarah Michelle Gellar and Robin Quivers (Stern's sidekick) sort of took Michelle under their wings, with Quivers saying, "Howard! Don't ask her that!" and Gellar putting her arm around Michelle and saying things like, "Just ignore him." But you are right that Michelle was just who she was--a shocked, nervous, rather naive 17-year-old who obviously thought she was going to be on a G-rated talk show and found herself in an R-rated one. She did handle herself well in that she didn't run off the show in tears or stomp off in a huff and stayed on through her segment to fulfill her obligation (she came off better than Mariah Carey, I'll tell you that). But like I said, it was mostly deer-in-the-headlights with some nervous giggles. Now today, at 23, Michelle could probably go on Howard Stern, though who knows why she would, and indeed handle the situation as you described it. But we understand. I'm sure Michelle's father feels about her appearance on Howard the way you do. I know, you can't help yourself.

Now Idle can vouch for my expertise as a Howard Stern fan, so let's put Michelle's appearance on Howard Stern's Blockbuster Awards interview show as a mistake out of ignorance where the blame falls squarely on the shoulders on her adult advisors who should have known better and said thanks but no thanks when Michelle was approached to be on it. Every celeb, EVERY SINGLE ONE, does a talk show, an ad, an appearance, a movie, a photo shoot, SOMETHING that was not what they were told it was going to be or just turned out to be something they chalk up to a learning experience. IMO, Michelle has absolutely no responsibility in being a "bad role model" by appearing on Stern's show since legally she could not give consent to be on it. It was the post-Olympics media deluge, Michelle and her people were new at the Hollywood PR circuit game, rookie mistake on the adults' part. Michelle made sure she knew what she was getting into and how she was being represented ever after and I daresay she never again said "Yes" to something just because a trusted adult said it would be okay. In fact, she took the ultimate responsibility for making her own decisions in September, 2001, but that's another thread. So Michelle on Howard Stern settled, okay? And yes, in this case, I am the one who knows and is giving the final verdict

And why would someone (not Mathman) bring up "Kwan haters" when there was nothing remotely hateful about the way anybody described Michelle's appearance on Stern's show? It was just different people remembering things differently. However, I don't think Michelle's appearance on Stern was pertinent to the discussion.

Back to Sasha's pics: The sexual controversy seems focused on the first photo with the CFM pumps (thank you Piel for the acronym--if a Brownie troup leader knows it, it's okay by me) and the DS pose. The rest of the photos just seem to be whether a given person likes them or not, and that's just par for the course with a magazine photo shoot of any skater. So let me just stick to photo #1, or exhibit number one here on GS Figure Skating Court. The question seems to be is it obviously suggestive of bondage and dehumanizing sexuality of females or not? To me, it's clearly a continuum and will never be a black and white, yes or no answer across the board. For individuals, sure, anybody can decide for themselves "That's over the line," but that doesn't mean everybody or even a majority feel that way. First of all, just to be clear about my position, as one poster described it, it's not the sexuality that bothers me, it's that the sexuality seems contrived and untrue to Sasha's nature. Actually, as for Photo #1, I think Sasha got into the same situation as Michelle did with the Howard Stern show. I think Sasha said yes to something that she thought would be one thing, ie, her idea of "high fashion," and at least this shot turned out to be something she probably never would have chosen to represent herself. But here's the dilemma as I see it for young celebs and sports stars. They want their share of the media goodies--and why shouldn't they? They've been getting up at 5am to skate in a cold ice rink for umpteen years and of course they want to do something that sounds fun and seems to recognize them for their achievements on the ice. They want to do a good job and they're programmed to cooperate with authority--the coach, the interviewer, the photographer, whomever. At least most of them are, there are always the iconoclasts. But by saying yes, they have to give up a certain amount of control over their image, at least in the early stages of their career and unless they gain the kind of power at least in figure skating I see only Michelle as having at this point--power and experience. So they get their image out there, there's more buzz about them, they can make more money, but the image that goes out might not be the one they want and it might back-fire on them. I think it also depends on the sport. Nobody seems to have a problem with Anna Kournikova's photo layouts, which have been far more provocative than this one--and she's never even won a tournament, except once in doubles.

Anyway, Sasha does the shoot and as we see from her journal, at least for Photo #1 she's only concerned with trying to not fall over. Here again, I place the blame for any problems anybody has with that photo on Sasha's agent or adult supervision during the shoot. I know she's of age, but she just turned 19 a few weeks ago and though Sasha seems to have been out in the world a bit more than Michelle only because she went to some regular classes at high school, I think it is still far too much to expect an athlete who is 18-19 years old, just getting serious notice by the media, to handle the world of high fashion photography. All anyone has to do is see the movie "Gia" or read any of the "High-Fashion Babylon" books or articles to know that you don't send a naive 18-year-old into a shoot with they photographer who discovered Kate Moss. Was Sasha's mother at the shoot? Was she bothered by some of the get-ups and poses but too intimidated to say something? After all, a big famous fashion photographer wants to photograph your daughter and if you question what he is doing, will he say, "Fine, you don't like it, go home. There are millions of girls who will do this and more." Or will he? If a mother says, "I'm really not comfortable having my daughter photographed that way," will the photographer say, "Okay, just skates, no CFM pumps" or will he tell the mother not to worry, that this is standard fare for fashion magazines, even those geared to teens and tweens, which is true. Anybody seen the movie "Thirteen?"

Anyway, people who are going to have problems with the way sexuality is expressed in these photos are just going to and no amount of discussion is going to change the way they feel. People who don't, won't, although I have found it interesting to read the range of responses. As for a code of conduct, I'm not sure, but considering the way the USFSA and ISU treated Tonya Harding, it seems that anything a skater does that is considered a serious infraction against the law may cause the skater, if eligible, to be suspended, but I have a feeling there is a lot of wiggle room there depending on how big a draw that skater is and how many world championships s/he has. Double standards--what a shock!

But this is hardly the first time a female eligible skater has appeared in a magazine in sexually provocative poses. Maria Butryskaya appeared in Russian "Playboy" when she was still eligible. As I recall, she did not appear nude or even completely topless, but her breasts were visible under some sheer fabric. I seem to remember something about Irina possibly posing for Russian "Playboy" but I'm not sure if it happened. So to get all upset and call for ISU codes of conduct for the kind of shoes and the pose of one photo and to find that almost all the photos have the crotch at the center (I'm sorry, but the fact is they crop these photos to fit the page and create an overall look for the page that draws the eye to the middle of the page and down) seems very far, too far IMO, to the conservative, "skaters should only look wholesome" end of the spectrum. Everyone's free to dislike the photo for their own reasons, of course, but a "call to action" seems reactionary and out of line to me. Just as interviewees do not get to review interviews before they go into print, unless they are a mega superwatt celeb with more power than the combined leaders of the free world, neither do celebs get to review the prints of a photoshoot and they never get to select which photos get printed unless they are the aforementioned mega superwatt celeb for whom the magazine will do ANYTHING to get them to pose. I can't think of anybody alive right now who has that kind of power. Most magazines would only want the reincarnation of Princess Diana if she was topless.

Which brings me to Mathman's excellent point about who these magazines are for? Indeed the fashion magazines are for women and I think a lot of women like to live vicariously or at least live out some of their fantasies through a lot of these photos. Certain people obviously don't like them for "sexualizing" and "demeaning" the female body, but a lot of women like the thrill of being sexualized and don't find bondage demeaning but erotic. Piel rightly said that one person's Michelangelo is another's Mapelthorpe, but so is the inverse. Many women who have standard middle class jobs like a little edge in their lives. While I agree that it is disconcerting to see the edge go farther and younger, these things also tend to ebb and flow. There are also "pillow porn" men's magazines--they all have one-letter names it seems and I can't think of any right now--but they're the one's that have JLo on the cover in a pink bikini bottom--from behind, natch--and whoever is the Hollywood hottie of the month in "lingerie" type gear and poses. Maybe this is apropos of nothing, but the other night on VH1 there was a show called "Centerfold Babylon" or something like that and the point at the end was that whereas it used to be the cutting edge to pose nude in "Playboy" or "Penthouse," now girls who are interested in that part of "the biz" venerate and want to be porn stars like Jenna Jameson.

But back to Sasha. I think if Sasha could have chosen the photos for this layout, she would not have chosen Photo #1, but I'm just guessing. But the fact is she had not choice except to say yes or no to the photo shoot. Whatever she posed for that they shot was the magazine editors' prerogative to use. Maybe Sasha considers it a rookie mistake, maybe she's pleased with the layout. She was never one for being the stereotypical "pretty in pink" figure skater, which is not to say other skaters are cliché to be as such. To me it's about being who you naturally are--at least as best you can in a world with a lot of artifice. If Sasha isn't pleased with Photo #1 or any of the other photos, then next time she gets offered a photo shoot, she'll probably bargain more or make certain demands. If Sasha is pleased with the layout, more power to her.

Now, since Mathman brought up the issue of whom these magazines are selling to, I have a question: If Michael Weiss, John Zimmerman, or any other well-muscled male skater posed for beefcake, highly sexualized photos, ones on par with these of Sasha, would the people who are offended by some or all of Sasha's photos be offended by the male version? I know it's not an exact comparison because men are still considered to be dominant in our society, but for a male figure skater to pose for such photos, would people find him to be a "bad role model?" Or would it make figure skating seem more "heterosexual" for men? More okay for a "man's man" to do? Just asking.

One last incredibly important thing (and I know I've rambled--kinda tired when I started, sorry): When did my example of how I'd try to capture what I see as Sasha's honest sexuality turn into "taking pictures of her frolicking in a pool wearing a bikini with her boyfriend?" How utterly cliché and gauche. Do ye not know Rgirl in the least? And when did my citing of Nasty Kinksi's snake-draped Avedon photo as an example of photography that captured something true about Kinski's sexuality turn into "Rgirl would wrap a naked Sasha in a snake? Well I never!" I know people don't read posts carefully and I think most of us tend to read at least "hot" topics with our own biases, including me, but GEEZ! For the last time, here it is: If I were photographing Sasha and wanted to try (can only try) to capture something truthful about her sexuality as I see it now (in a couple of years, who knows, I might get out the CFM pumps), I would put her in a natural setting. I suggested the ocean surf because she's from SoCal. I am dead serious when I say I would have her goof around with her boyfriend OFF CAMERA because, and I didn't want to come out and say this so bluntly, I would want to photograph her in a physiologic state of sexual or near sexual arousal. That's the only reason the boyfriend is there. He'd never be in a photo. There's a term for this, but I ain't going there. I have seen and taken photos myself of people when certain hormones are high or certain pheromones are thick and I think it comes across on film. If Sasha were a great method actress, we wouldn't need the boyfriend. As long as Sasha is "Happy" in the way I want her "Happy" or close to "Happy" then I would just want her to improvise, play around, maybe suggest some poses to start with. So it's (a) get Sasha "Happy," (b) get her improvising moves and poses in the ocean surf in a one-piece bathing suit--bikini, puh-lease! (c) shoot the photos.

And I would NEVER shoot Sasha with a boa wrapped around her. I used that only as an example of something that worked on someone else. Now it belongs to Nastassia Kinski, that's her truth. Hopefully someday some photographer will find Sasha's sexual truth on film. She's a strong, lovely young woman and sexuality in one's early '20s when you have an incredible body can be an incredible thing.

End of Rgirl's BS essay on "Sasha and the Pumps." BTW, I think that photo of Michelle where she's reclined on a sofa, with the shot from overhead--the one Mathman really likes--is a good for an honestly "Happy" Michelle.
Rgirl

Rgirl said:

Hopefully someday some photographer will find Sasha's sexual truth on film. She's a strong, lovely young woman and sexuality in one's early '20s when you have an incredible body can be an incredible thing.

Click to expand...

RGirl, a wonderful essay, as always. Quickly on a couple of points. I do not expect everyone to like the pictures, they are "different," not your typical photo shoot, aimed to portray it's subject dressed as beautiful, as possible, looking as pretty, as possible.

It's one thing to dislike the photos, or even think they are too sexual in nature, but to fall for far stretched conclusions, i.e.: SC wants to pose nude (she did not pose nude), and verdict-like statements: (just to paraphrase) Girl Scouts would never eat beef again, USFSA should not allow Cohen to represent US at the Olympics -- is quite another.

But let's forget about names for a moment. We've got skater A, who posed for a fashion mag, and donning on sexy pumps in one of the pictures. Then, there's a skater B, who while being even younger, than skater A, participated in notorious talk show, which targets far wider audience, than any fashion magazine, and which routinely features porn industry people, as guests (not to mention every kind of weirdoes off the street). This show is known for it's crude content, and guests being humiliated, just for a kick of it.

Now, I would expect all those, who condemned skater A for posing in a provocative way, to rush back, and admit, that they were shocked, when they found out about skater's B endeavor. If they were able to come up against Miss B, as harshly, as they did against Miss A, it would make their indignation look much more believable. But they simply cannot bring themselves to it, instead they're coming up with excuses, and illogical (in this case) assertions, that skater B have shown a class act.

All of the above, I believe proves my point, that blown out of proportions criticism of SC has very little to do with hurt feelings of offended innocence, but is more likely a product of rivalry between skaters (or between certain groups of fans, to be more precise).

Now back to the picture in question. We have no evidence, that Sasha feels uncomfortable with it, or was somehow tricked or pushed to pose for it. Actually, I think, she's quite happy with the final product, or she wouldn't rush to post the pictures on her website, so her fans could have a preview. She writes that tons of pictures were taken during the photo shoot, and in fact she didn't know what would be chosen for the final lay out, but as soon as she found out, I'm sure if Sasha (or anyone close to her) objected to one of them being used (on the grounds, that it could hurt her image, etc.), the editors would oblige. Wherefore, I assume, that like majority of her fans, SC thinks that pictures are tastefully done, and finds nothing wrong with them.

I was joking, when I wrote about Sasha, posing with a serpent. It would not look original, and besides, I don't think it's just a good idea, trying to cover one's private parts with a live snake (not to mention, quite dangerous one!). Besides, in today's time and age, we could anticipate to meet objections from animal rights advocates (PETA, anyone?).

So we would have to wait for a while, RGirl, until Sasha's sexuality would be "found" on film. Discovering it, IMO, was not Sorrenti's goal.

skatingfan5 said:

Double "Huh??" I understood what MK encounter you were referring to -- just not what were the "much milder incidents, involving other skaters" you alluded to. It would seem miscommunication between us is inevitable, and thus further attempts at discussion rather pointless.

Click to expand...

Skatingfan5, it is clear from his/her other posts that the "other skaters" that Registered is referring to means "Sasha," and the "much milder incidents" of interacting with dirty old men refers to the photographer of this photo shoot.

Registered, thank you for saying that you are only pulling my leg with such emotional rants as:

"Can we say then, that there's a double standard adopted by Girl Scouts towards willing, "consenting adults" encounters with "dirty old men," when they're initiated by Michelle Kwan? On a contrary, much milder incidents, involving other skaters (especially if they're a threat to MK), are not so easily excused."

Click to expand...

But on the Internet it is not easy to tell when someone is trying to make a joke and when they are using sarcasm to bash skaters and other posters. I think that you should apologize to Piel, the only Girl Scout leader on this thread, as well as to Kathy, who expressed her point of view on the topic of the objectifying and demeaning of young women in our society. Neither of these posters said anything remotely along the lines of, "I like Michelle and hate Sasha," and why you decided to turn this thread in that direction is a mystery to me.

Sasha is no more a threat to Michelle than Howard Stern is. (BTW, no one thought it appropriate to bring Howard Stern, of all people, into a discussion of Sasha's photo shoot except you.) Sasha cannot take away anything that Michelle is or has achieved. If it is time to pass the torch, fine. Maybe Sasha will win the next five World Campionships and an Olympic gold medal. That does not in the least threaten Michelle's place in skating history nor in the hearts of her fans.

Rgirl, so much analysis, so little time. Do you really want to work Sasha up into a sexual frenzy and then photograph her? Anyway, I will just mention one thing for now. About skating boys posing for beefcake, would that make them seem more heterosexual. Good heavens, no! Posing for beefcake is about the gayest thing you can do. Check out the "muscleman" magazines. It's the same reason that bodybuilding is perceived as a gay sport. Heterosexual men just don't spend that much time primping and posing in front of a mirror.

Mathman (no more Mr. Nice Guy.)

PS. Rgirl, where I can get a full-sized version of the Michelle shot that you mentioned? You know, the one with Brad cropped out.)

Mathman said:

I think that you should apologize to Piel, the only Girl Scout leader on this thread, as well as to Kathy, who expressed her point of view on the topic of the objectifying and demeaning of young women in our society. Neither of these posters said anything remotely along the lines of, "I like Michelle and hate Sasha," and why you decided to turn this thread in that direction is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

Whoa, Nelly! I definitely didn't bash neither other poster, nor a skater on this thread (it's even more evident, if you narrow your definition of bashing to staying: "I hate so and so"). I asked for even handed approach, while criticizing skaters, and it's a fair direction to turn a thread to.

Always a nice lady. Registered poster.

registered said:

On a contrary, much milder incidents, involving other skaters (especially if they're a threat to MK ), are not so easily excused.

Click to expand...

Quit it with that pseudo-coy crap and just say that it's about Cohen.

I don't know who Michelle's PR representative is but my feelings, as far as her being on Stern's show, is that she probably was unaware of what she was getting into. If it was her parents, I have a feeling they also were unaware. They don't come across to me as people who would watch much television in the first place and have had such a busy life just never happened to come across it. Of course, as usual, I could be very wrong but I just can't believe her parents would set up something like that for her if they knew what kind of a show it was. If it was her rep shame on him. He of all people should know better. From what I remember of the show she didn't end up saying much at all.

By the way, I was a scout leader too. Actually it was a Brownie leader and my husband was cub scout master. I never heard of scouts until I was married and had children. We belonged to
4-H clubs.

I asked for even handed approach, while criticizing skaters, and it's a fair direction to turn a thread to.

Click to expand...

I disagree that, on a thread supposedly about Sasha Cohen taking some pictures, it is a "fair direction" suddenly out of the blue to bring Michelle into it, or any other skater, for no other purpose than to hold her up to criticism. This thread has nothing to do with Michelle. Please trust me on this, Registered: the Kwaniacs are not out to get you, and not every post about Sasha contains a secret message about Michelle. Sometimes we just want to talk about Sasha.

OK, forget all that. I am over being mad and I don't want to fight any more about the foibles of the mysterious "skater A" and "skater B." Because...I just saw the Skate Canada short programs. Wow! Sasha's performance was outstanding in every way. She seems to have so much more confidence this year. She attacked every element with joyful gusto. She deserved every bit of her 71.12 points. Great performance. (Bad costume.)

Yukina Ota The only thing she lacks, at age 16, is maturity.

Plushenko. Even at half speed, in a class by himself.

Navko and Kostamorov. As Suzie Wynn said, they both have such beautiful long legs! What a pleasure. (I didn't get home in time to see the pairs, unfortunately.)

Sokolova and Plushenko. I am always impressed at how well these Russian skaters express themselves in English. I wonder how many American skaters can speak Russian. Sasha can, a little. I bet that's about all.

The ladies, once again, were so much better than the men. This seems to be because, this far in the season anyway, none of the ladies is pushing the envelope technically. Only Jenny Kirk and Amber Corwin, I think, have done a triple-triple so far, and no one has tried a triple Lutz-triple toe in the short program. Last year we saw two triple Axels in the very first Grand Prix event. This caution is probably a good strategy under the CoP, and leaves the ladies free to concentrate on their beautiful spirals, spins, footwork and connecting elements. BTW, is it my imagination or did every skater in this competition abandon the classic layback position for one with the free leg lowered? (Except Ota, whose layback was to die for!)

But the men keep trying quads, triple Axels in combination, etc., that they really can't do with any consistency, hence the falls and awkward landings all night.

Anyway, that was a wonderful show, and I am envious of anyone who got to see it in person.

Mathman

qu

Mathman said:

Rgirl, so much analysis, so little time. Do you really want to work Sasha up into a sexual frenzy and then photograph her?

Click to expand...

Et tu Mathman? Okay, uncle. I fully accept that most people will never get what I'm talking about in terms of taking photos of Sasha in an attempt to capture her honest sexuality. Wait! "Never give up! Never give up! Never give up!" If it was good enough for Winston Churchill and all of England... Okay, take "frollicking around in a pool wearing a bikini with her boyfriend" and "working Sasha up into a sexual frenzy" and try to envision that "Happy" feeling somewhere between those two. I know, you're a guy and most men I know don't have that. Kidding, kidding... I won't go into what I saw on that irrelevant-to-the-discussion talk show, except that, as always, I was/am under GS oath. Okay, I'm not Churchill or England, not even close, so now I give up.

Anyway, I will just mention one thing for now. About skating boys posing for beefcake, would that make them seem more heterosexual. Good heavens, no! Posing for beefcake is about the gayest thing you can do. Check out the "muscleman" magazines. It's the same reason that bodybuilding is perceived as a gay sport. Heterosexual men just don't spend that much time primping and posing in front of a mirror.

Click to expand...

That was two things. Anyway, probably true. But then we are in the post-Ahrnold era, though I doubt that many of his new constituents saw "Pumping Iron," and also in the beginning of the "metrosexual" era (if people don't know what I mean, you need to waste way more time watching TV, especially made-for-adult cartoons). I was going to say "pose for 'Playgirl'" but that was so out of proportion to posing for a fashion magazine. So forget the heterosexual part and just concentrate on the question about whether a young male skater doing "hot" photos in a magazine or on a calendar would cause such a ruckus. The many municipal fire departments put out beefcake calendars featuring city firemen and believe me, though these guys are drooled over by every gender, they are not perceived as gay--not that there's anything wrong with that, to quote a certain episode of "Seinfeld." So I would still ask the question if the people who object to some or all of these photos of Sasha in terms of being a role model for young girls, which, as I said, they have every right to, would also object if a young male skater posed for similar photos?

Registered,
Thank you for the nice compliment, but while of course I was being facetious about mine being the "last word" on the Stern/MK subject, I was also hoping you and others would drop it. I don't think Michelle's appearance on Stern is relevant to the discussion, was only prompting unnecessary animosity, and even though I think you have as much right as any of us to bring up something you do think is relevant, IMO there is no need to continue with the issue. I can understand bringing it up and arguing the initial point, but it seems to me to have gone beyond that. Besides, I think you and others have too many other interesting points to make. BTW, I couldn't remember who said the thing about photographing Sasha wrapped in a boa constrictor. Sorry, obviously you were kidding.

Grgranny,
Since my post on p. 6 is an especially disjointed and rambling one, I'm only bringing up what I just said I hoped would be dropped to say that somewhere in the first couple of paragraphs ITA with your most recent post.

Mathman (Again),
You asked,

PS. Rgirl, where I can get a full-sized version of the Michelle shot that you mentioned? You know, the one with Brad cropped out?

Click to expand...

Right. Just see if you can be nice enough to me to get that now, buddy

OTOH, ITA with you about last Cohen and Ota last night at SC, so I guess you'll just have to see what mood I'm in and SUFFER until I decide. (Is this what anybody means by sadism?)
Not frollicking, Not Frenzied, Just Plain Happy Rgirl

Rewatching Skate Canada, I am just so impressed by the speed of revolution in Sasha's jumps, and the crispness of her landings. If she can keep it up this will be her year for sure.

Rgirl, I just today picked up a copy of the latest issue of International Figure Skating magazine. It was their annual issue featuring the "ten most beautiful people in figure skating." Right there on page 37, completely bare-chested -- the beautiful Timothy Goebel! I think we should start a new thread.

Mathman

Originally posted by Rgirl
First of all, just to be clear about my position, as one poster described it, it's not the sexuality that bothers me, it's that the sexuality seems contrived and untrue to Sasha's nature.

Click to expand...

I thought that's the whole point. Like in a pic where a little girl (not that Sasha is a little girl, what would make the whole "it's bondage, demeaning" for some people even more shocking) tries on her mother's high heels; you go for the contrast, and role playing. As for "demeaning", I don't agree with that. What jumped out on me when I saw the pic for the first time, was Sasha's muscular legs (a contrast to the heels), and the fact she looks the photographer in the eye. Which is hardly the look of a person who waits to be used. Plus, I've always thought that shoes like that look quite dangerous, especially on such muscular legs. One kick to your temple and you'd be dead. If he photographed a naked woman with a gun, it would have a similar effect. The fact that a woman is naked or bent over shouldn't make her automatically a target or a victim in people's minds. And it mine it doesn't. IMO thinking like that help people, who can't control their urges, rationalize and justify an assault -- "She had a short skirt, and she was bending over, so as you can see, Your Honor, she was practically asking for it." Give me a break.

Originally posted by Kathy
The shoot is a message as a whole, to those who understand the language. And believe the audience this magazine is trying to capture will understand the message. The first picture creates an image. The poster who identified the purpose of those shoes is accurate. They are a specific article of paraphanalia, that is embedded with meaning this is sexually demeaning to women.

Click to expand...

But why? Because a small group of people use them in the way that may be demeaning to women? And by that I mean making women wear shoes like that for prolonged periods of time, which can cause a permanent damage. Because if a woman takes pleasure in being tied up and wearing shoes like that on during sex, I don't find it any more demeaning that if a woman choses not to have a career and be a stay-at-home mom -- what, I know, doesn't sit right with some women ("This is not what we've been fighting for", etc.).

Now, shoes like that are also worn by women who dominate men. Why not that association? As Mathman pointed out, it's mostly women who buy those magazines. Maybe it's men who should feel offended and demeaned?

Originally posted by Kathy
I will not describe in words what it is because I don't want to attach those ideas with Sasha, and because youngsters frequent these boards. But if you are of age and want to know, just take that picture into any bar and show it to a group of men and they will be glad to tell you.

Click to expand...

But why on earth should we go by what some men at a bar think? That's their reality, not everyone's. I'm sure if you showed them that pic of Michelle IDLERACER posted, they wouldn't think of her athletic abilities, either. Wouldn't be much different if you showed them the whole women's competition. Which bring me to what I find demeaning. Someone said, it's not the same (with the Michelle's pic), because it's a sport. Agreed. What I find funny, though, is the fact that women are required to wear skirts (which, as we know, fly up more often than not), and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- can't wear black tights under them (like that: http://www.iwsa.org/kwan.jpg ). Not to mention regular pants (like men), which would make the crotch ogling much more harder. Men, on the other hand, can't show their legs, or even wear tights.

In the photo shoot Sasha had a choice, on the ice she doesn't. For me the latter is certainly more demeaning (after all, men are not required to skate in Speedos). Sure, it is a sport, but for some men -- to paraphrase Gertrude Stein -- a crotch is a crotch is a crotch.

Btw, Rgirl, I think the comparison to Michelle's interview with Stern has some validity (Stern-objectification of women-Michelle's agreeing on having anything to do with him-might've looked as if she's OK with that, etc.), but I agree that for many people the whole Michelle versus Sasha thing would cloud the issue at hand (and it has), so it's better to drop it.

As for Kinski's photo with a serpent. It wouldn't be hard to find all those things there: an objectification of women (she's naked), female submissiveness and male domination (a snake as a phallic symbol; it's on top of her and between her legs), or even bondage and zoophilia... No, I don't see it like that, but the point is it can be seen like that.

Kathy, I do understand why Sasha's photo shoot (or that one pic only) may be disturbing to you, and some other people. What I don't understand, though, is your clear conviction that if others don't see things your way, "they don't understand what they're seeing", and the like. As if there was one definite way to see things. Clearly, there is not.

(edited to fix the link)