It’s not so much attention bias, it’s lack of attention–period. If “all that warrants mainstream coverage is undress,” instead of complaining priggishly shouldn’t we be asking why that is? One easily finds photos of Tom Brady, displaying any number of personae, all deemed compatible with his status as super-athlete. As long as he throws touchdowns and wins games on the football field, few will forget about his athleticism when they see him in other activities and circumstances.

I should also add that “sexy” images of male athletes typically reinforce their status as potent athletes. For them, the ideal look doesn’t hinder but rather facilitates athletic performance. It’s difficult to be a great athlete without an athletic body–why I think it is sometimes good for girls and young women to see athletic female physiques.

When the attention female athletes receive is measured against, say, what male athletes of modest ability (DIII, semi-pro, etc.) receive, it becomes evident that their slights are likely the result of the ordering by ability that naturally occurs in athletics. Our task, then, is to remove obstacles that hinder female athletes from becoming better athletes, including body-image ideals that aren’t conducive to athletic performance, which in some cases might be best served by “uncovering” female athletes.

Sports Illustrated is like any other magazine. They will publish/print/talk about what makes money. That is the reason the magazine exists, not to be a social statement publication. If men’s sports didn’t sell, SI wouldn’t exist either.

I doubt sincerely that anything will change. Therefore, if you want change, you will have to do it yourself and force a change, as opposed to asking/demanding/expecting others to do it for you. Sorry to be blunt, crass or disrespectful, but that is how I see it.