Men get addicted to this porn, and they fully support it.
All men are pornographers really, but most keep their mouths and porn pictures to themselves. They used to paste porn on women’s lockers at firestations, but that’s illegal.

No it is woman hating, and hatred of women achieveing and the male need to degrade women everywhere on earth. When you do this stuff to black men, it’s called racism, when you do it to women, it’s called fun!

I hate to be contrary, but I think the Allison Stokke episode is less a matter of patriarchy than one of capitalism. It is in the nature of capitalism to objectify—not just women but all things. It objectifies them in the process of incorporating them into the capitalist architecture.

All objects in the capitalist schema are producers of fluid streams of intensity that can be tapped into (consumed) by other objects to facilitate or augment their own production. The difference between the original stream and the augmented stream is known as profit. Of course, not all the profit goes to those who tap into the stream. Even if the outcome is to the benefit of the consumer, a portion is returned to the original object (cost), which may either be reinvested (capitalization) or spent (consumption).

‘Value’ in the capitalist system isn’t an abstract moral or metaphysical notion. And it certainly isn’t political. It is entirely a function of how much profit can be derived from the consumption of the original stream, and it cannot be known in advance how much profit can be derived, since this is a function of the relationship between the producer and the consumer (consummation).

In the capitalist system, we are all public toilets. Indignant feminists resent the fact that Ms. Stokke’s appearance is so much more profitable than her athletic (and myriad other) talents (or even her ‘inherent human worth’). However, it is a fact, as unfortunate as some may find it, that physical beauty is a highly valued property. It isn’t a moral issue. It’s a state of affairs: people are generally more willing to consume beauty than an athletic performance. They are also more willing to consume a Hollywood production than a work of art. There is no accounting for taste.

Ms. Stokke was victimized in two ways. First, her image was consumed without her consent. Unfortunately, the provision of her ‘likeness’ is not under the same control as, say, her athletic performance. As an athlete, she could choose to restrict the flow of her performance as the conditions warrant it. She could simply choose not to participate. She cannot similarly choose not to appear beautiful. It would seem an easy matter to assert a copyright over one’s own likeness (in the same way that Disney has extended its copyright over the likeness of Mickey and Minny), but the drawbacks would probably be disproportionate. For what it’s worth, the male image, while less valuable, is likewise unprotected by the law. If someone felt she could derive enough value from it, she could seek to acquire unflattering images of the offensive sports blogger and post them for public ridicule.

The frequent reference to burkas is curious. The rhetorical intention, it seems, is to tie an emotionally loaded, culturally subjective disparagement of a Muslim practice with the desire to control the provision of one’s appearance. I probably shouldn’t read so much into it, but I can’t help but marvel at the ironies. I realize that ‘burka’ is code for ‘patriarchal oppression’. It is reviled in the west because it represents a restriction on the woman’s right to make her appearance available to whomever she chooses. But even if the practice is a reflection of a self-serving desire by men to control the provision of ‘their’ women’s images (something I’m not in any position to determine), the logic is impeccable. If the goal is to keep lascivious eyes away from something, you cover it up or sequester it (the latter option being equally abhorrent to many).

But the second way in which Ms. Stokke was victimized is more to the point, I think. Even if she couldn’t control the provision of her image, she should at least be paid for the value it creates. Some may remark that this amounts to a sort of involuntary prostitution, but, again, that’s the nature of the capitalist system—we’re all public toilets. Even now, websites like iblamethepatriarchy.com are pimping Ms. Stokke’s story. There’s a difference, perhaps, but not an essential one. If there is an obstacle here, it is in monetizing the value derived. Moreover, this particular victimization will probably prove to be fleeting. In some ways, Ms. Stokke has already been paid (ironically, in terms of media exposure) for her unwilling participation. Unless she has some extraordinary and unusual principles, she will have to work to avoid profiting from it (and profiting far more than she ever would from her athletic talents—even if she turned out to be the top female athlete in the world, her appearance would only magnify her value by orders of magnitude). I wouldn’t imagine there is one person in a hundred (man or woman) who would turn down the opportunities opened up by a physical beauty such as Ms. Stokke’s on the basis of what she has had to endure.

Remember if you feel bad about being fat it is not your fault. Most people are fat according to CNN, so most of us should feel bad? WTF?!