Oops! The 'bra and panties' adjective went in the wrong place in the above post, due to a last-second edit. It should have gone into the next sentence, before 'women's style'.

Normally I don't do typo-error alerts, but this is one case in which an exception is needed if I'm to avoid invoking a deluge of hooting and sniggering.

I dunno, Killarney.

Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?

I know the MailOnline is not a 'journal of record' and James Nye follows the house style, but at least some of the athletes involved are quoted:

"Good news - the U.S. women's Olympic beach volleyball team has no intention of covering up in London - despite new rules which allow them to.

…they have chosen to remain in their skimpy crop-tops and bikini bottoms.

'We're not uncomfortable in our bikinis,' said team member Jen Kessy.

…Olympic officials have allowed a change to the dress code in the famously popular sport, to accommodate the religious concerns of nations who have reservations about women wearing little clothing on the beach.

And in addition, the changes to the official uniform of tight bikini's reflect the changeable nature of the British weather, which can become cold despite it being the height of summer.

…U.S team members reaffirmed their love of their minimalist beach gear.

'This is the most comfortable thing for us to wear,' said Kessy to the New York Post. 'We can style our bikinis however we want. They can be bigger or smaller. If it is cold, we will put clothes on. But we won't be playing in shorts. For us, that's not comfortable. You get sand everywhere in the pockets.

'But for others, it's now their choice.'

…Despite their own personal preferences, the U.S. Olympic team has declared their support for anyone to wear what they want while competing during the games.

'We want women of all different religions to be able to play our sport,' said Kessy.

'And to not be able to play because of the gear is not OK.'"

In a poor attempt at evenhandedness one of the sidebar linked articles is titled "Diving for his dreams: after a wobbly start Tom Daley JUST qualifies at 10m platform (but at least he still looks good in his trunks)"

>>And how does the application of social context apply to women’s Olympic track and field costumes, which have fallen into an alarming sexist double standard since the 1990s? The women’s T&F uniforms are all skintight and show as much arse, midriff, thighs and navels as possible, while the men’s are much looser, with a lot more body and leg coverage.<<

>>Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?<<

Do all women have dodgy long-term memory when it comes to sport or just you two? At the Sydney 2000 Olympics the women's 400m final was won by a woman dressed as a condom. That woman happened to be Cathy Freeman and there was quite a lot of media hype around the win - there's no way you could have missed it. I'm surprised you don't remember it.

She must have had some reason for the fancy dress and I'm confident that it's not because she is a devout Muslim. Maybe it was meant to be more aerodynamic or some-such - but not so aerodynamic that the officials thought it provided an unfair advantage or she wouldn't have been allowed to wear it. My guess would be that other female athletes are allowed to wear similar garments but in most cases just choose not to.

Cheers,

Tony

Well, der, Tony Lavis...

My question: - " Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?" - was to highlight that very fact.

I think most women are happy competing in a minimum of clothing.

When female athletes pose for Ralph magazine and bang on about their virginty on Twitter, wear the skimpiest gear possible etc, it's all about their branding, trying to get more funds. Even Magnussen would have a gold medal if he shaved his designer stubble.

Women have turned tennis into a fashion parade, and are able to get more money in endorsements than actually playing. Exhibit A, A.Kournikova.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/05/commentary/column_sportsbiz/anna/

But it's a victim feminists job to decide for women that they are victims of society for their choices in brand management. If only those nasty men would support women's sport and spend their money on Cathy Freeman's favourite deodorant, when women don't even support sport at all.

So if women decide to use their looks to get more funding, with the result their sporting achievements receive less focus, it's all society's fault, or , more accurately, the nasty men's fault for finding women attractive.

I have as much sympathy as I do for hollywood media-whore starlet that 'just wishes she could have some privacy', all the while selling the rights to her wedding to the highest bidder, and suddenly talking about her latest romance exclusive the week before her latest film comes out.

Tony, I'm sure the feminists would say that 'Nike made her do it', not that Cathy chose to wear what would earn her lots of money. See, it's all a conspiracy, the nasty mens like to see skin hugging outfits, so they kept her in perpetual 'financial bondage'.

Enough men like to watch men for their achievements in athleticism, the fastest times in the world. Enough men like to see female flesh and be vaguely interested in a bit of a contest which is never quite as fast as that of the men.

Enough women are happy to see men tastefully clothed leaving a bit to the imagination while they play their silly games, and like to see women athletes dressed fashionably so they can bitch about their choices and whether they're shagging Kobe Bryant.

PS: I'm convinced more athletes cry these days since celebrity endorsements.