I don't want to sound like an old fart (I'm only 26 after all), or a prude (definitely not), but seriously guys...The girls mentioned and the pics posted are all good looking, no doubt...but do we have to objectify the rippin' women of skiing?!
If I want to see a photo of a hot girl in lingerie, I'll take a gander at the latest Victoria's Secret. The "women of freeskiing", if you will, are gorgeous with their clothes on! Personally, I'd rather see them in full snow-gear...
To rebut the inevitable flaming from the peanut gallery, I'll quote the Godfather of the freeski movement, Mr. Seth Morrison. As Guest Editor of this month's Freeskier
, he gave a similar answer to a letter lamenting the lack of skin in a previous issue's "Women of Freeskiing" feature:I WANT HOT FLESH
"I liked your feature about the Women of Freeskiing. However, what were you thinking? Those black and white artsy photos of the girls just didn't cut it. Female athletes are hot. I don't expect naked or semi-naked Playboy
shots, but come on. Let's see them! Lynsey is especially hot but I could not even recognize her. And some of the skiing shots were not up to your standard either. Blow those suckers up and let us see the girls in all their glory."
To which the Godfather replied,C'mon man, these girls don't need to be portrayed as sex symbols even though they always are. If you want to see some T & A get a Hustler. As far as the skiing shots, write a letter to the photographers and let them know how badly they suck. We'll give them your address and they can hunt you down and kick your ass.
On the same page, BTW, there's a photo of Lynsey fully clothed. The caption says it all:
"You asked for it, you got it. Lynsey looking hot! But remember, Seth will kick your ass if you think that she's a sex symbol. After all, she is a sponsored skier and you're not." LOL