I really don't see it as sexist or objectifying... it's just "FIERCE", representing herself as a motorcycle, which is something fierce, fast, and furious.

My own thoughts:

Motorcycles - to be rode. When I saw this, I had the impression that she was being represented (whether unintentionally or otherwise) as still a part of male sexual fantasies. Even though she sees her Sasha Fierce persona as aggressive, this character is not completely threatening to the male gaze as she implies that she is taking on the role of a woman who although assumes an image of American masculine toughness (the motorcycle) she is still part of the male sexual fantasy.

Her holding the handles of her outfit/bodice(?) calls attention to how sexualised she is, in my view.

I know that others will disagree with my reading (which may show more bias than I initially thought), but I just wanted to share my thoughts there.

Since she's riding herself, I think that takes a little bit out of the problematized aspects of it....but it still says something about how she uses her body as a tool/vehicle.

Maybe some kind of reference to George Michael's "Too Funky", where Emma Sjöberg wears this costume?

Yes, it's the same one. It's Thierry Mugler from his Spring 1992 collection.

Umm... what about: motorcycles = sexy. Beyonce = sexy. Therefore, Motorcycle-Beyonce = very sexy.

To me at least, it doesn't have any "Get on your 'bikes' and 'ride'!" connotations (with apologies to Queen). Of course, I don't find these types of photos (i.e., 'fashion' photos) sexually stimulating...

I think that the most significant part of the image for me is her gaze. She is looking just past and below the viewer's gaze. If she were looking directly at the viewer then I could see her pulling off either the "come objectify me" or the "aggressive" looks. But really she looks zoned out, like she is thinking about something and is unaware that her picture is going to be taken at that very moment. Even her arms seem to hang awfully limply, like she is not so much griping the handlebars as she is resting her wrists on them. So this makes me read the pic as she's more of a mannequin, a prop on which to display the Mugler design.

This reminds me of a manga/anime from 1989 called "Goku: Midnight Eye". I'm sure the Beyoncé image wasn't inspired by Goku, but... it's pretty damn similar.

Here's a cover from one of the mangas:
http://i11.ebayimg.com/06/i/000/a0/7e/b1b0_1.JPG

There's a scantily clad woman (who is actually a robot that makes animal growls in lieu of speech) with motorcycle handlebars on her shoulders. I haven't seen the manga, but in the anime she's wearing nothing but a thong. At one point she is literally ridden around by a small person. (Also, she shoots lasers out of her mouth. No joke.)

There seems to be a bit of an Objectification-reflex going around here!

As others have noted, the exact outfit Beyonce is wearing appears at the 1:14 mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXj2TudPCYU

For some reason, I was struck right away by how much more "fierce" the model in the video looked because of her big boots - as opposed to Beyonce's dainty little pumps - and I don't really understand the choice to PhotoShop in a dark shadow from the hips to the knees. But I wouldn't be too quick to read acres of subtext into those aesthetic choices; fashion has changed a lot in 17 years too.

Does Haute Couture objectify women? Sure - the model is always an object on which the artist's work is displayed. Does photography objectify women? Of course - the photograph itself is an object. So yes, fashion photography - basically the genre to which this image belongs - "objectifies" its female or male subject by its very nature.

What I don't understand is how this particular example stands out as a "mess" or achieves a different effect than any other fashion photo. Lisa's visceral reaction seems triggered by the fact that the model is holding the costume's handlebars ("riding herself"), but the obvious verbal double entendre doesn't really translate in visual language. What if Beyonce's hands were in the air? What if she were wearing a helmet? What if she were wearing a sweatsuit? What if the dress looked more like a bicycle? In any of those silly scenarios, the photo would still look ridiculous, but I don't see how Beyonce would appear less "objectified."

Now, the fact that the costume is in color while the woman is in monochrome goes a long way to suggest that the costume itself defines this celebrity sub-persona or "character." Beyonce isn't a very good actress, so when she updates her brand with new characters, she tends to rely heavily on costumes, props, wigs, and makeup for effect without straying far from conventional sex appeal (see also: Madonna, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, etc). So like photography and fashion, being a pop star has its own objectifying effect.

Don't we all wish we had those kind of problems!

What exactly is being "promoted" here?
I don't even get it. Like several other commenters, I instantly recognized Thierry Mugler's art-piece-slash-bustier from coming on 20 years ago now. Its presence seems so random; I don't get it. Why is it here?

Also? Did they not realize that this particular garment is so awesome (I sew; it fills me with awe) that it makes anyone wearing it practically disappear? It's not meant to be worn. That's madness. To wear it is to become all but a headless museum mannequin. From a promotional point of view, it's a fail of a choice. Honestly, in a photo like this, a human model is literally beside the point. Poor Beyonce/Sasha.

Lighten up, it's just fashion.

Much of the Sasha Fierce image involves presenting the work of avant garde designers, i.e. Thierry Mugler, who designed the costumes for her most recent tour, and Gareth Pugh. These designers benefit from having one of the biggest celebrities in the world promote their work to an unfamiliar mainstream audience and Beyonce gains access and credibility in the fashion world that benefits her brand (and probably helps her mother Tina gaining credibility her own label, House of Dereon, as well).

To the folks who want to say "lighten up", this isn't a fashion blog -- it's a sociology blog. Telling the author what she should and shouldn't write about is a pretty shitty thing to do. If you aren't interested in discussing or analyzing a particular image, nobody is forcing you to.

Because it's interesting? I just don't see that this particular piece makes any strong statement about the sociological context it was conceived in besides the connection between the artists involved.

I don't even think it's really objectifying; from what I can see the garment is the motorcycle, not Beyonce, and she is riding it.

One important note for those who maybe are a little confused by some of the interpretations on offer: when looking at a picture like this, intention doesn't always matter in the way you might think it does. It's a bit like the old "death of the author" idea, except that we are acknowledging that the author is not an atomic individual -- zie exists in a society which holds to certain values and norms.

Thus, we aren't necessarily asking "what are the artist's reasons for choosing this outfit" so much as "what does this outfit represent?" Some people note that this picture is in line with Beyonce's "fierce" image. Does fierceness represent a real empowerment of women, or an apparently threatening statement which is really not a real challenge to established gender roles?

Right now I don't have any definite answers, just offering some things to think about.

Look up the illuminati theory etc etc. There is so much to it and very heavy, but her husband has been rumored to be a part of this group. The symbol on the motorcycle is a sign of the devil. Also the rest of the insert she is wearing triangle earrings and posed in a triangle. Its funny that things arent always what they seem or things that are so blatantly in our face may have more of story to it.

Damn the motorcycle, there is a picture of the devil on the thing. Look at the face of the motorcycle, the devil with horns of fire.

my cuzin made the motercycle she was ridin