"A man had recently been arrested on charges of stalking her and the image, critics claimed, was exactly the kind of thing that triggered men to stalk her."
I wonder what that means for someone like me, who actually does porn. This kind of shit logic makes me almost physically ill.

Something that pisses me off only slightly less is this: "Of course, selling one’s own sex appeal..." Posting an artsy erotic picture of yourself on Twitter? How the hell do you know that 'selling her sex appeal' is her aim here? Some women- myself included- genuinely like celebrating our own bodies publicly. We do it for us. It turns US on. That desire may be because of social conditioning, but it doesn't make it less real, and fighting one's sexuality to make a point about an abstract concept like patriarchy... that's a statement only someone with a conventional sexuality can afford to make. Those of us who are into exhibitionism, into kink, into S&M aren't going to give up our sexualities in order to fight the patriarchy, and expecting us to do so is oppressive as fuck.

This whole theory that being publicly sexual is some bargain with the patriarchy is anti-feminist in the extreme. It completely discounts women's desires.

I think it's really sad that she took the picture down, although given the pressure that was brought to bear on her it's understandable that she did so. It's a really nice picture! It's even sadder that she took the down, not to prevent stalking (since stalking is caused by stalkers, not by photos posted on Twitter), but to prevent people from saying that if she gets stalked it's her fault.

Great post. It's alarming that she is being blamed but sadly, not surprising. What grabbed me the most is the part about patriarchal bargaining and how it works. This is so true, even for non-celeb women...The taking of "power" or attempts to take "power" from within a system of oppression in attempts to "transgress" the oppression simply fails. Thank you for the well-articulated, shocking post.

I also enjoyed the bit about bodies as property - meant for public consumption. Very true. Sadly, the West makes it look "empowering" or "choice-driven" to become a commodity in a commodity-hungry culture that thrives off financial and social exploitation (particularly the sexual exploitation of women as holes)

Well, thanks for letting me know about your choices and how they, as individual entity based on the ruling class definition of "choice" (which doesn't exist for women in any universal reality, in any true form), will liberate women as a class. In a society built on oppressive principles the word "choice" often seems hollow, considering the number of women around the world who are systematically exploited. But since our patriarchy provides a facade of "happiness" and "liberation" for more privileged women we are often blinded and believe we are making "choices" within patriarchy. It's like workers "make the choice" to be exploited for their bodies and their labor on a daily basis. Or the working poor making their "choice" to work 50 hours a week and still live in complete poverty - oh, but they're just "choices". So thank YOU, for proving the privileged entitlement that comes with the existing consumerist driven "third wave" movement that focuses on individual actions being described as political initiatives.

@ Lori A: I totally understand where you're coming from, and definitely agree with you to a degree. But I think it's important to consider context in this situation. While some women, yourself apparently included, certainly find empowerment in publicly celebrating their own sexuality, Williams is a celebrity, and moreover a sports celebrity. She makes her living by selling her talent and her personality, which will inevitably intersect with sexuality at some point or other. I'm inclined to believe that Williams is indeed "playing the game" in this situation. Keep in mind that it is possible for this to be true in this situation, without completely invalidating the use of one's own sexuality towards achieving empowering, feminist goals in a broader context.

Thanks, thoughtful post. You mention that it's pretty much required for female athletes to make this patriarchal bargain, but I can think of some tennis players who I don't think have made this bargain in the same way -- Kim Clijsters, for example, is number two in the world (of women's singles), is extremely successful, and the Google Images results for her vs. Serena are very different:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kim+clijsters&um=1&tbm=isch
http://www.google.com/search?q=serena+williams&um=1&tbm=isch

Many/most pictures of Serena are of her in a bikini, whereas I can't find a single similarly-dressed image of Clijsters. I don't see anyone calling Clijsters a lesbian/dyke/dog to my knowledge, either, though she's married to a man and has a child, which is going to make that sort of insult harder to make.

I don't know what my point here is, though. I certainly don't want to make any excuses for stalking, which is utterly reprehensible. Maybe there are different shades of accepting the patriarchal bargain, and Clijsters has arguably found a shade that we should find to be more praise-worthy and socially-healthy, in that it disadvantages other women less than the bargain that Williams has made?

This article and the comments that follow are a perfect example of the privileging of theory over lived experience. Sorry it fucks up your theory to have some chick who's posted naked pictures of herself online come in and tell you that patriarchal bargaining is NOT the only reason why someone might do this sort of thing. It must be so inconvenient for you, me existing and talking about how I exist. By all means, continue to ignore me and explain me away with academic jargon, and go on talking about why this woman none of you know is doing what she's doing.

It's not about Lori's personal choice. I think Lori needs to back up from herself and start thinking about the larger political picture here. This "me me" nonsense is getting us nowhere. Your personal individual choice, Lori, doesn't hold relevance to the thousands of women who face sexual exploitation - Maybe it's time to move past your own ego and acknowledge the universal struggle.

Lori, I know it might not look this way, but I really am trying to engage respectfully. I'm a bit socially awkward, and tend to come across as combative. So I'm really sorry if that's happening right now. >_<

It seems to me that your disagreement with the post is mainly with this paragraph.

A patriarchal bargain is a decision to accept gender rules that disadvantage women in exchange for whatever power one can wrest from the system. It is an individual strategy designed to manipulate the system to one’s best advantage, but one that leaves the system itself intact. Williams is making a patriarchal bargain, exchanging her sex appeal for the heightened degree of fame and greater earning power we give to women who play by these rules (e.g., Kim Kardashian). Don’t be too quick to judge; nearly 100% of women do this to some degree.

I have reservations about the above paragraph myself, although I agree with the rest of the original article.

If this paragraph were removed, would you agree with the rest of this post?

Lori A, Lisa's post said that Serena Williams didn't have a choice. Lisa didn't say that all women who pose for sexy-looking photos are in the same boat. Your circumstances are different because you aren't trying to make a living as a female athlete. If you happened to do something that might look similar to what Williams did, but that really did originate in free choice, great. It's not about you.

I can't get past the heels. Bra, panties and heels. Really?

Oh, fuck the dude and the horse he rode on.
The idea that Serena has anything to do with the insane person who is obsessed with her is simply absurd.
Basically it's the usual "you should control not only your behavior but that of all males, because they are so dumb that they can't help it when they see attractive woman".
Interesting part is... the stalker have stalked her BEFORE not AFTER the picture, thus to whole argument loses ground.

My wish... this dude to be deprived of any public attention whatsoever because he is not just a jerk he is a DUMB one which is inexcusable and he dares to spread some tired old misogyny.

THANK YOU, Simone.

Never been interested in Tennis, but this is what's made me loathe it in recent years. Sure, golfers have a tendency to go pink and white and volleyball players' uniforms are tiny, but in what othere sport would all professional women dress up in cocktail dresses and diamonds to do their thing? It's bad enough that they had to play in skirts, but it's like they don't even get to look the least bit professional any more.

I'm having a little trouble with "nearly 100% of women do this to some degree". Are we talking nearly 100% IN THE WHOLE WORLD? Are we talking biological women or self-identifying women? Are we talking nuns and devout Muslim women and orthodox Jewish women and Amish women and butch lesbians and drag kings? I find the statement difficult to swallow. I certainly perform femininity myself to some extent, but I don't necessarily equate that with commodifying my sexuality. After all, all social interaction is to some extent constructed and performative, and even presenting as entirely androgynous and asexual is still based on cultural ideas about gender and sexuality.

I completely reject the idea that a woman should "expect" to be sexually victimized no matter what they wear or don't wear, and no matter where they are.

The whole meme is premised on the idea that men's penises are in complete control of their actions: men have no agency, once they have spotted an attractive woman dressed (or undressed) such that it rouses the interest of the All Powerful Penis that the man is helpless and must fall upon her like a ravening beast. This idea requires women to police their own sexuality AND men's sexuality to avoid violent attacks.

The fact that our society allows this type of argument AT ALL is why we say that we live in a rape culture. Islamic countries in which the burqa or niqab are required are the exact same thing, just a little more overt.

Honestly, I can walk down the street looking "like I want sex", but that does NOT MEAN I WANT SEX WITH ANY RANDOM GOOBER.

For years, female athletes, including lesbian female athletes or those who just like dressing in a more "butch" manner have been forced to perform a specified type of femininity, especially if the activity involves money, as with college and professional sports. It is assumed that only men get to set the norms as viewers, since the main audience for sports is assumed to be men.

In fact, very muscular women athletes get told that they "look like transsexual men" or "look like dykes", and may have to exaggerate their performance of femininity in order to succeed at the college and pro levels. Because the people funding women's sports are really selling not the athleticism, but the woman as an object to present to the male gaze.

Seriously. She has the right to do whatever she wants with her body without others judging her. Yes, our society is patriarchal. But heck, if you start to "judge" every photo a woman takes of herself because she wants to feel sexy (whatever her view of sexy is) and call her "selling herself to patriarchy".... is will be way more sexist.

I can't believe some of the topics here and we appear to have gotten way off topic. I mean, what does sex workers, bdsm kinks or even privilege have to do with it?
These are the facts:
1. Serena Williams tweeted a picture of herself in what most people have considered a sexy position, for whatever reason.
2.She was criticized for posting this picture with the reasoning that it would encourage more stalkers.
3. She gave in to the criticism and took the picture down.
4. Lisa offers the theory that a single female athlete is pleasured to be sexy or risk being called a dyke or face any other physical appearance based slur, but the patriarchal society we live in condemns sexiness, making things very difficult for Serena.

In my opinion, to remain on topic we should discuss; why a women cannot post an attractive picture of herself without being accused of bringing harassment on herself/ Do most single female athletes feel the need to be sexy in order to avoid the mocking of their appearance/ is this giving in to the patriarchy or simply trying to survive/ what can we do to fix what we feel is wrong with this. Let's have meaningful discussions about the content posted, not random arguments.

Lori comes across as your typical insecure "sex worker" (daddy's money prostitot) who can't handle anyone even remotely criticizing how women are treated like fucktubes in this society because she enjoys being a fucktube and doesn't want anyone shaming her about it.

Its as transparent as your clothing.

@bri, yes, this is a social issue-- not a personal one.

Here we have to decide if sexuality is *always* a manipulative tactic, and if it is, is it disingenuous, or simply a way to elicit an emotional response like any other (such as, art, music, etc).

How a person chooses to elicit an audience's response should not necessarily be assumed to be a gender-based power-move. It could be simply self-expression.

ON the other hand, as any woman knows, opting out of "using" sexuality as a social-power tactic puts one at a definite disadvantage, as well as protecting one from certain dangers (and possibly inviting different dangers altogether...). Lose-lose.

Only in a society which values individuals above stereotypes, and is culturally capable of doing so, can sexual self-expression not be perceived as manipulative tactic (which is likely to elicit an aggressive/predatory response from certain people).

Finally, this particular pose-to me-seems very tame; it's almost hard to imagine this photo as an issue. When, as women, will we ever be able to take pleasure in our own shapes and experiences, without having to worry about being judged or being preyed upon? Maybe never.

The bottom line is: it shouldn't matter *why* a woman is behaving in a certain way. There is never an excuse for violence- ever. It should be dealt with head-on, and very publicly, in my opinion; and that is, by insisting that her rights to express herself in a reasonable manner be protected.

I find this post disturbing, to be quite honest, though I am also able to look at it through a racial aspect. Not so much the discussion of whether or not female athletes are pressured to be sexy or not, but the way all of this is worded. We often see sexualized women in images, and in most cases (such as advertising), the women did literally choose to be in these images, knowing full well that, say, they were going to be posing half naked in high heels for a product that has nothing to do with sex. Alas, most models and female celebrities are white (or white-ish). And they are usually portrayed in these posts as victims; people will point out the fact that if they quit or refused to do sexy work, they might be fired from their agency, even though they are technically totally able to leave. If not victims, then they are at least just neutral pieces in the patriarchy puzzle.

That's not how Serena Williams is portrayed here.

There is NO QUESTION here that Williams is a victim; she was stalked and harassed by a man. She's literally the victim of a crime. That is brushed aside as practically inconsequential, as the article goes on to describe, basically, why she is totally at fault for this, why she is "choosing" to make a patriarchal bargain (even though, if we accept Lisa's theory on the situation, there basically IS no choice), and then commenters placing blame on her, or actions like hers, that disadvantage other women. It's not intentional, but the article and comments are filled with an undercurrent of victim blaming. If women in the public eye are victims societally for situations like this, why are we saying that SHE should be criticized, as opposed to the society that supposedly put her between a rock and a hard place? This does not happen, at least not in the actual articles, with such prevalence when it comes to white models and celebrities; why does a black woman have to shoulder the burden of women's sexual liberation while white women hold no responsibility?

What I took from this post is the complete absurdity of the patriarchal bargain that we all must make (even those of us who are gift with world class physical prowess). The actuality that Serena Williams was forced to take down an image that she may have been forced, either overtly or covertly, to put up in the first place is the archetype for the insanity that is patriarchy.

Her stalker should not be ignored. He should be thrown in jail. But instead the creep is kowtowed to. Disgusting beyond belief.

I've been reading this blog for several years, ever since I came to college to begin working on my sociology degree. Now I find this place is as disgustingly hostile to me as college is. I have to attend school part-time due to disabilities, but I can't afford to do that without a scholarship, and they don't give scholarships to part-time students even though the ADA would require it. Now I can't even fucking come online to a sociology blog because I get called a 'fucktube' and a 'prostitot' and shamed up and down, and all the while the people who run this blog act like they're doing a public service by keeping this shit up and also shaming this athletic black woman for celebrating her beautiful body in a white supremacist patriarchal society, because why not? If sociology is this tied to academic disgust for anyone who's different, I'm so fucking over it.

I completely agree with Lori A, whom I commend for fighting this out. So many comments in this thread are horrible and shaming. WTF is with mods??

Also, another thing. This:
"Williams will be excoriated for her unwillingness to defer to the male gaze if she refuses to trade on her sex appeal. But if she does make this trade, she’ll be the first against the wall if anything bad happens to her."
... is not true. Not only because it's victim blaming, but because whether someone is in danger of being attacked is mainly a function of privilege/lack of privilege, NOT of behavior. Even if a woman is never sexual and is super-careful and doesn't go to bars in short skirts, etc. etc. etc., she is still in danger of being attacked. Publicly sexual women are probably higher-risk - and this is a whole problem in itself - but a "patriarchal bargain" is NOT required for being attacked. Lack of male privilege will do that on its own. FFS.

Got to say, Lori A, that your tone has been abusive, aggressive, and disrespectful of everyone else. I think you are just trolling, personally. Let's not feed the troll.

Good points and criticism, but Serena is a terrible example. She has been a hypocrite and money grabber her entire career.

I've been slutshamed here as well in the past and I have got to admit that it hurt a lot.

Besides that I agree with this article. It's an (unconscious) battle a lot of women have to fight I think. You are pressured to look appealing (and passive?) for the other sex. Shave your legs, wear a padded bra, use make-up because you have to look 'representative'. But do not look TOO appealing or act too initiative in the dating process or be too inmodesr. Your 'market value' wil be declined. It's a thin line that shifts from culture to culture and from time to time, but there's amost always that thin line.

Famous men that get stalked don't get the same finger-wagging treatment as Ms. Williams. Did anyone tell David Letterman that he deserved being stalked because he's on TV all the time? That he should dress differently and not have images of himself on the internet? Of course not, because as a man he can be famous without being "sexy" and everyone's sympathetic to him about how awful it is to be stalked.

Off topic, I am finding it interesting that many recent non-porn-related articles on this site have been dominated by a self-described porn producer who links to her site in each of her many comments. This seems like a strange place to use to drum up business while demanding unquestioning validation and vehemently slamming any attempts at dialogue, analysis, or criticism.

Much of this debate seems to display the problems of our current "choice" framework that dominates white, North American feminism. As long as anything can be described as a "choice" it becomes automatically empowering and beyond criticism. While certainly all women are free to choose whatever they wish, that does not make those choices beyond political ramifications or criticism. Because middle class white women's feminism has generally ceased to engage with class/race/global politics, the idea of any kind of criticism that demands that feminism dismantle oppressive power structures has been replaced by the dominance of individual "choice" rather than understanding systematic and institutionalized oppression. This is why every feminist discussion now basically breaks down into whether or not an individual woman is empowered by her individual choices, which is then seen to be the final conclusion on the discussion. Needless to say, this approach is based in white women's economic and social privilege, as these choices do not exist for racialized/economically/socially disadvantaged women (a recent example being slutwalk's refusal to engage with women of colour's argument that since we are already and always considered sluts by virtue of our skin colour we do not have the same privilege to reclaim words as college educated white women do.)

In other words, to understand this image and the discussion around it without once engaging with the history of rape of Black women's bodies, how physical labour through slavery continues to condition our ideas of Black women's bodies particularly with an athletic woman like Serena where we see the same arguments about masculinity and strength being deployed in the same ways that they were against slave women, the specific context of the Williams' sisters being Black in a historically exclusively white sport, the fetishization of Black womens' "booties" reaching back beyond the "Hottentot Venus", etc.etc. is to refuse to engage feminism in understanding how systematic oppression impacts the bodies and persons of women of colour.

I wonder if the veiwer's situation behind a curtain is what made critics reach for the 'stalker' bait angle.

I mean, wouldn't be self-evident stalker bait, if say, it was cropped with a keyhole shape?

What I take from this post (which I think it was worded inelegantly, and avoided important topics such as factoring in her race and which assumed that her sexuality excludes enjoying exhibitionism), is that with female-identified people: you're damned if you do damned if you don't.

You enjoy an "alternate" sexuality? Slut. Oh, also you're a traitor cuz you conform to the male gaze.

You don't enjoy it? Do it anyway. Prude. Oh, you're also a traitor because you conform to the "mainstream" ideals of Christian sensibility.

You're outside of what the mainstream considers attractive? Ew. Go fix that.

You "fix" what is considered unattractive by conforming to kyriarchical standards? Sellout.

And no matter what, you deserve all the bad that happens to you, and none of the good.

We're stuck in a system where no matter what we do someone else will make an excuse to blame us. If we're ourselves and ourselves just happens to fit the dominant ideal in some way, we're accused of holding up the kyriarchy. And the parts we don't fit will be attacked by the kyriarchy. No one wins!!!

It's enough to give you a panic attack (it's driven me to the edge sanity many a time). What's a fem.-ID'd person to do?

Interesting to see so many assumptions being made by so many in this discussions. From the intent of Serena Williams looking to "just make money" or the intent of posters to either "troll" or "blame the victim", it's very hard to even jump into and have a honest,open, but polite discourse...

FYI: I put words in quotes that are touchy subjects...

So what do you call it when men sell sex appeal?

She should be able to do whatever she wants, without judegement from men or women.

How is the patriarchal bargin different from gender policing? I see some nuances having to do with the male gaze, but men also appeal to the male gaze. For example...
the need to be well groomed (but not to look gay)
the idea of looking the way other men think women want them to look
having a thin, blonde, white girlfriend
be agressive without being violent (less so for white men)

Broken out from maximum nesting:

aoirthoir:

A theater is normally a public space, even if it charges admission. (If the public can get a ticket, its a public event.) Attending an event constitutes consent to view the actions which are inherent in the event; going to a porn movie is consenting to see the porn, but not to be assaulted by other people who also bought tickets. This is the exact same standard of consent that applies everywhere.

beautiful photo. a pity she took it down.

Wow, y'all are still at it? This is day 3(!) and my inbox is still getting jammed with new comments, though they're mostly just more-strident restatements of previous arguments since obviously no one understands what anyone else is REALLY trying to say, so apparently we gotta keep going 'round and 'round until everyone else concedes that "my" perspective is infallible, inarguable, and represents objective truth!

Or could it be that everyone but me has a 'script for Adderall?

Nice to see LoriA being an utter moron somewhere other than Unreasonable Faith, to be honest. I've never come across somebody whose claimed identity is so at odds with their actual actions, or who reacts so badly to even the slightest suggestion that she might be wrong. She's alos fantastic at completely misrepresenting what other people (including y'all) have said. Basically, LoriA is a douche-nozzle.

"You're actually wrong about what "moron" means, medically. It has (had) a highly specific meaning, and that's why I asked if you knew what it was."

No I am not wrong. I have not spoken about the DEFINITION of the word AT ALL. I've talked about its use to MARGINALIZE PERSONS. It's use to HARM those that are differently abled.

"What's striking to me here is that you've acknowledged that the word evolved from it's diagnostic meaning (a person of adult age physically who has a developmental age of seven to twelve years) into a prejorative meaning,"

I made no such claim.

"but you won't acknowledge that the word now has a different prejorative meaning to that;"

I made no such claim.

"it's evolved beyond a derogatory term for that specific group of mentally ill (or, more accurately, learning disabled) people."

The fact that any word has multiple layers, as most words do, is irrelevant to its status as an ABLEIST word.

"How am I trying to excuse my use of the word? I've already acknowledged that my own use of it was wrong because I know more about the word than the vast majority. What I'm trying to get across to you here is that the people who you seem to be trying to defend,"

You mean the differently abled that the word has been used to marginalize? Like me?

"were they to hear the word applied to a stranger in the street by another stranger in the street would not be offended by it,"

NO. SOME of people who are marginalized by it will not be offended. Just as SOME people who are marginalized by terms like "lame", "retard" and the like are not offended. Their lack of offensive has no bearing on the offensive nature of the word who in those very same circumstances ARE offended by it.

"because the word has not applied to them for decades, and they're highly unlikely to know that it ever did (and I include their non-disabled carers and loved ones in that)."

YES IT HAS. People in the categories I've listed are addressed by that term quite frequently. How complicated is this?

"
"How am I trying to excuse my use of the word?"

You can say that YOU in your KNOWLEDGE should not have used the word, but coming back and finding reason after reason to declare it isn't ACTUALLY marginalizing, and isn't ACTUALLY offensive, IS excusing your use. Out of one side of your mouth you say one thing and out of the other you say another. Acknowledging that you know about its harm, does not dismiss your attempts to dismiss its harm.

Now, either you're going to continue to use it, or you're not. If you're not going to use it further, there's no need to convince me that it's not a harmful word because I've seen its harm first hand. On the other hand if you're going to use it further, there's nothing you will say that will convince me you are going to try to avoid harming people with it, since, you know, you're going to use it. So make up your mind one way or the other and stop trying to argue in YOUR PRIVILEGE that OTHERS that ARE harmed by it ARE NOT.

Custador said:

"I also think that a really, really great way to make sure that some words keep their power to offend is to try to prohibit their use and become falsely over-sensitive to them. I’m mentally ill and I’m developmentally disabled, and I’m not offended in the least by a third party calling another third party a moron."

::head....desk::

"Then what is it when you tell someone what is or is not suspect, when they have expressed their thoughts on the subject and determined in their mind that it is fact suspect? I can be skeptical on anything I choose to be."

There is a difference between YOU suspecting something and something BEING suspect. Huge difference.

You said: "You’ve said some very suspect things, " and not "**I** suspect some of the things you've said..."

If you said that YOU suspect them, well then you're speaking to your feelings or thoughts. I never contravene your feelings are thoughts, because they belong to YOU. But what you said was not about you, it was phrased ABOUT ME. **I** said some very suspect things according to your claim. Like I said that's a huge difference.

"'I can question something without asking a question about it.'

-Sure. Kind of like how I can sing in my heart.-

More like I can roll something around in my head without getting outside input."

Any analogy you choose is up to you.

"'I’m sure it is.'

-Well, it’s not.-

Then, you're just lying. I find that ableist of you."

Uh huh. So, you are *sure* what I've said is suspect, I tell you that it is not (my statements ALL being FACTS), and that makes me ableist. Uh huh.

"'It’s very hard to tell if you’re serious.'

-For you.-

Indeed, because you say contradictory things. Social is difficult for me most times, so i take what people say unless I have reason to question it."

I've not said anything contradictory.

"I have reason to question the validity of your statements, therefore they all become suspect.
That's what i think."

I am Aoirthoir. I am 5'6". I am Irish. I am not a feminist. I am 12 feet tall.

One of these statements is not true, therefore, they are ALL not true. That's what is called a logical fallacy. And that presumes to accept your false claim that I've contradicted myself, or that my statements aren't valid. To be not valid they would have to be not true. Since they are true, they are valid. Whether you choose to accept them as valid, well that's your entitlement. I don't expect human beings to believe everything factual considering you humans have a terrible record with the truth.

I anticipated that answer. I've learned all that i need to about you.

"How about dismissing somebody’s entire argument by calling them aoirthoiric? (What is the adjective form of aoirthoir?)"

Works for me. I'm not sure what an adjective is :D Or is it verbs I forget about?

"The insult comes from the use as a pejoritive, not as a descriptive."

Unless you are just making shit up because you've been called out for using another word as an ACTUAL pejorative. :D

"'Hurting people when you are able to avoid it, is abusing your privilege.'

That phrase does not use 'privilege' as a pejorative."

I bet we'll see some twisting of logic to find it claimed as a pejorative anyhow.

"'Get your no-good, privileged, ugly-ass, aoirthoiric opinions out of public view until you clean them up a bit' does use 'privileged' as a pejorative."

That is brilliant! Also if you ever contact me I'ma make you a certificate that you can hang on the wall because you're the first one EVA to take me up on my offer of using aoirthoir as a pejorative! And you did so with excellence! Which means we're on our way to aoirthoir being accepted as a true pejorative.

"Similar examples exist for the superlative and neutral cases."

I love the word superlative.

Funny how women don't want to be seen as sex symbols and then post images like this.

"And, yet, when she plays the game she gets, in return, not only
stalkers, but criticism that suggests that, were she to be stalked
again, she was asking for it."

I think you are implying a cause and effect that aren't necessarily there. Posting this photo did not make stalkers magically appear.

I don't see this as a patriarchal bargain. Regardless of how she presented herself - she would be judged according to her looks. She doesn't invite or dis-invite that - it will happen anyway.

Unless she starts trying to use her sexual capital to win Tennis matches - she is not contributing to the patriarchal idea that women's sexual capital is their only asset; disproportionately.

She is objectified because she is a woman - not because she took a beautiful picture of herself that she was slut-shamed into taking it down.

"But once women appear to have acquiesced to the idea that their bodies
are public property, their bodies are treated as public property."

No, their bodies are treated like pubic property because society sees celebrities, especially women, as property.

People do not attack and invade someone's personal boundaries because of WHERE the lines are drawn concerning what is shared with the public freely by an individual; but because those people don't respect those boundaries at all.

I think a better question might be - why are male athletes never criticized by Sports casters and Sociologists for using their sexual capital and women are? Why are female celebrities victim-blamed when they are stalked and men aren't?

Cause I'm pretty sure that nobody is telling Rafael Nadal to put his damn shirt on so he doesn't attract obsessed fans - cause that would be silly, right?

I must have missed all the comments as I generally ignore sports commentators. But lets set the record straight: Stalkers are NOT rational human beings. Saying that Ms Williams somehow encouraged them is total bullshit. I also think the dude who said it is being dishonest about his real motives for saying something like that, and I personally would love to see Ms Williams herself call him out on that. Just cause he can't play as well as her doesn't give him the right to flap his gums. I do think, however that she got bad advice about airing that picture. I think it was an unfair trap that she fell into.

thanks for sharing!