Olympic Porn

There is a growing backlash against NBC's recent video collage titled "Bodies in Motion". In the video, female Olympians are shown in slow motion as they jump, dive, run, and leap in tight and revealing "uniforms". Care is taken to ensure that none of the more delicate and personal aspects of the female anatomy are neglected. The video has been described as tasteless and offensive, even soft core porn. Female athletes, critics assert, should not be treated, or viewed, as sexual objects. (Well, not exclusively as sexual objects. Let's be realistic here). It is contended that is precisely what the video sets out to do.

The condemnation of the video is undeserved. Athletes are not required to wear the smallest and tightest uniforms available. They choose to. Many female tennis players wear the shortest of dresses knowing full well that those dresses hide nothing. Women's field hockey, another favorite in the video, is another a sport that has attracted the male eye with its short dresses and frequent tumbles in which those dresses fly upwards. Men have also displayed an interest in watching women's soccer no doubt due in part to the willingness displayed by some players to remove their tops to celebrate. In tennis, though it is becoming more fashionable for female players to wear shorts under their dresses, it is by no means universal. Dresses have all but disappeared in female skating. Only the cold of the ice keeps them in stockings. It is difficult to believe that swimsuits cut to 3 or 4 inches below the belly button make swimmers any faster in the water. For their own reasons, many athletes, male and female, choose to wear apparel better designed to titillate than serve any competitive purpose. If athletes want to compete in uniforms that look as if they might have been painted on, viewers should not be blamed if they take up the invitation to look.

Whatever the video's producers claim concerning its intent, the video has served to save many male viewers hours of time. Why sit through boring footage of swimmers warming up in their sweats if you can go straight to wet swimsuit shots? Why put up with large, overweight shot putters and hairy weight lifters if you can zip straight to pubescent girls in waist high tights prancing and bouncing about? Why waste time watching a whole gymnastic routine if you can cut to the crotch shots?

Whatever pretext or defense NBC might offer on their behalf, they knew exactly what they were doing when they created the video. NBC was not trying to create a new porn niche. The movement to sexualize athletes has been going on for some time (think of Michael Jordon's Hanes underwear ads). I am sure there is nothing on the video that has not already found its proper place in the world of porn. NBC was hoping to cash in by meeting a demand. In doing so they simply called attention to something that was already in plain sight. No, don't blame NBC for sexualizing the Olympics. It is the Olympics that sets the rules on uniforms, not NBC. NBC is just trying to make some money. If the NBA can get by with shorts extending to the knees and below, the Olympics ought to be able to get by without athletes competing in mini skirts, bikinis, bras, glorified jock straps, and hot pants. Needless to say, it won't even try.

Does it Really Matter What the U.S. Thinks?

On the issue of Iran, Israel is adamant. Under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to progress towards the capability of making a nuclear weapon. Israel has already made plans to take military action in order to ensure a nuclear armed Iran does not come into existence. Wheels in Israel have been set in motion. They have served notice. The U.S., however, is still calling for patience. It too will not tolerate a nuclear Iran but it believes more time, not much but more than Israel is comfortable with, is needed for sanctions to work. Harsh sanctions already applied to Iran are being felt in that country. More severe sanctions are in the wings. Nevertheless, Israel is not persuaded that time is on its side. It is prepared to act.

When it comes to Israel's decision to attack Iran, does it really matter what the U.S. thinks? What are we going to do if Israel acts against our wishes, brushes off international calls for dialogue, and bombs Iran? Will we chastise Israel? Will we call for a U.N resolution condemning the attack? Will we take the matter to the U.N. Security Council? Will we apply sanctions on Israel? Will we cut off or curtail aide? What if the U.N. does take action and proposes condemnation of Israel, or worse, calls for sanctions? Will the U.S. support that action? If your answer to all of these questions is no, you are correct. The U.S. will do nothing. It might seek to preserve a fig leaf of neutrality by wringing its hands and calling for calm. It might urge dialogue but it will not punish Israel. Despite relying heavily on the U.N. to support its geo-political strategy over the last decade, the U.S. is quite prepared to abandon it if it doesn't act in our interests. In the case of an Israeli attack, the U.S. likely would urge calm and call for a cessation of hostilities, (no doubt only after Israel's military objectives are achieved), but it will not rebuke Israel. Neither will it allow Israel to be rebuked if there is anything it can do abut it.

At risk is years of U.S. effort in the region. After decades of striving to achieve some small measure of objectivity in the Middle East, the U.S. will be placed in the spotlight. It will have to make a choice, Israel or the international community. The choice will be an easy one for the U.S. It will also be a costly one. In those countries where autocratic rulers have been overthrown and the new governments are seeking to establish themselves a choice will have to be made as well. How will they respond to an attack on another Muslim nation? Do they remain silent? Do they simply issue statements condemning it? Whatever the political and religious complexities in the region, the fact would remain that another Muslim nation was bombed in the dead of night.

It has been argued that a U.S. attack on Iran, despite public condemnations, would likely gain the secret approval of many Arab nations in the region fearful of a powerful and aggressive Iran. That may be so. But after years of undermining the authority and legitimacy of centralized governments in the region and working hard to give the "Arab street" a voice in public affairs, we cannot disregard how an attack on Iran will be viewed in that same "Arab street." It has to be considered that there is a distinct possibility that the rank and file in the Arab street will not have the same nuanced view of regional politics that their leaders do. An attack on yet another Muslim nation could easily unify a region in turmoil. It would be difficult for movements and governments, many of which are extraordinarily fragile and dependent on U.S. aid and support or their existence, to continue accepting that aid without appearing to be pawns in some larger U.S. plan. The nascent Arab Spring movement might have to push back against the West lest they be construed as part of some broader U.S. policy serving Israel's interests. Even worse would be if an Israeli hand is perceived to be involved. No Arab movement would likely succeed if it was suspected to be, even in the smallest and most indirect of ways, in cahoots with Israel or working to its advantage.

If the Middle East awakes one morning to the news that bombs are falling on Iran there will be turmoil. You can be sure there are many groups in the region that would move quickly to take advantage of that turmoil. The U.S. has many complex relationships and interests throughout the Middle East that must be weighed in any attack on Iran. The U.S. must consider the broader ramifications of an attack on Iran on its long term interests in the region. Israel does not. Israel has only its survival as a Jewish state on its mind. Moreover, it has time and again demonstrated that it is willing to go to any length to continue its existence as a Jewish state no matter what the U.S. might say or do. Whatever decision Israel comes to regarding its security, the U.S. will have to adapt in order to take that decision into account. It is unimaginable that the U.S. will abandon Israel if Israel comes to a different conclusion regarding Iran's capabilities and launches an attack. Because of that, it really doesn't matter what the U.S. thinks about what must be done regarding Iran. It only matters what Israel thinks.

If Israel attacks Iran it will be able retreat to its fortress afterward, confident in its ability to fend off the consequences of their attack and secure in continued U.S. support, political, military, and otherwise. The U.S. cannot retreat. It must remain engaged. Because of that it will have to pick up the pieces. Even if Iran is defeated, and it will be, life in the Middle East will be no easier for the U.S. If the government in Iran survives the attack we will find in them an even more determined and implacable foe. If the government does not survive the attack we will have another Middle Eastern nation in turmoil. But this time it will be a large, strategically and economically important nation. It will also be a nation more likely to turn east to rebuild than turn west into the arms of the nation that defeated it.

Yes, it matters what the U.S. thinks when it comes to Iran. But, at the bottom, it matters what Israel thinks even more.