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.
R
girl
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.
