about the serena williams cover, it reminds me more of a greek olympus statue, which would kind of logical for a sports magazine. plus she’s a black naked covergirl with quite some curves which doesn’t happen very often.

In general i don’t see so much the problem in objectifing women through naked covers (i don’t even really see how this is objectifing).

i’m way more concerned about the social catégories magazines try to put us in. women should read gardening magazines, gossip magazines and fashion magazines full of shopping and cooking recipies; men should read sports magazines, car magazines and news magazines (way too complicated for simple housewifes).
with gay émancipation appeared even gay magazines (with fashion and shopping advices), gay tv and a special gay movie section at your videostore. gay men are now part of society… but still appart (they don’t shre the same interests). lesbians however don’t need specific litterature, or did i miss the lesbian sports magazine ?

it is very oppressive for both, women and men to be forced in simplistic and very narrow categories…

also, why do people assume that the only choice is between naked and dressed to be “sexy” or “feminine”? all of these women would still appear to be strong and confident athletes if they were wearing, say, what they’d normally wear for a workout.

additionally, if we’re assuming that williams had a choice in how she was photographed – which i don’t necessarily think is so – why is it okay for her to be naked, but not okay if she chose to wear, for example, heels and a bikini? both are considered to be equally catering to the male gaze, yet for some reason only one is acceptable as a choice.