As for the Hillary Clinton cleavage debacle… I thought the half-inch extra she showed was very modest and discrete and not nearly as sexually overt as it was made out to be in the press and blogosphere. If Hillary did so because she felt a need to “sex up” her image, then yes, I am also disappointed in that decision. But I also understand that Hillary has faced more than a decade of unwarranted media attention on her appearance and I know that she is a strong, educated woman who is in the position she is in now on the basis on her merits. Palin, meanwhile, was chosen mostly for her looks and has actively relied on them since to advance her career.

I don’t like Palin’s policies and I hope she fades from the national spotlight as soon as possible. But I think I would have figured out a lot quicker how out there she was if the media had treated her in a slightly less sexist fashion. Things like this just made me want to give her the benefit of the doubt because they seemed so unnecessary.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Prejean. By now everyone should know the rule of thumb for sexual videos, photos, etc. Just because it’s done “privately” for a lover does not guarantee that it will remain private. And these days it’s just idiotic to assume otherwise. Surely we’ve learned from Paris, Kardashian, and Cyrus?

I have slightly more sympathy for Palin in that the photo was clearly meant in a sexist and demeaning manner. After all, out of all of the photos of Sarah Palin that exist, of course they picked the one of her in semi-revealing attire (even if they are running shorts), striking a rather pageant-like pose, and the pièce de résistance–an American flag in the background. No photo-editing required.

On the other hand… it’s hard to sympathize too much given my strong personal dislike of anything the woman does. I’m glad she ran on the Republican ticket for VP, but only because I believe she aided the Democrats in winning. I would love if she ran in 2012 for the same reason. Otherwise if I don’t have to see her face again.

So where were your thoughts on the Hilary Clinton cleavage “debacle”? If one could “prove” Hilary was *trying* to look sexier (warmer, more approachable) would you find fault with her for doing this? Or is it OK for Hilary to sex it up a little because, you know, she’s mostly not trying to be sexy and she’s mostly a strong persona (or maybe you like Hilary more than Palin) so it’s OK for her to show a little this or that? Is there some standard of “sex kitten” that a female politico is allowed before we start saying the way she gets treated is her own fault? And if so, would you share us that magic number so we can make sure to call out the right women?

As an athlete myself I see nothing wrong with Palin’s outfit whatsoever. I really, really don’t. As for her pose, it would be slut-shaming and splitting hairs for me to decide when a woman has crossed the line from posing attractively to posing “too”… whatever. I find an attack on this woman (and all women don’t button up entirely) to be part of that tired virgin/whore standard. OK, make sure you look pulled-together but don’t style your hair TOO much or too sexily, pose attractively and HIDE YOUR CANKLES, don’t look frumpy but don’t look like a whore. I remember when Palin was running for VP (sorry, reflexive-fear shudder) the obsession that HuffPo had on her slutty french braid hairstyles.

I don’t know what Sarah is up to. And you could be right, and she’s just a hack who uses her sex to sell (I do categorically believe she’s a hack, by the way). I’m not saying you’re wrong about Palin – inasmuch as you don’t know the woman but are taking some logical analysis based on her past behavior. I am saying I get sick of the slut-shaming, the criticisms and obsessions on women’s sexuality or attractiveness from the rest of us. Maybe the MILFs will quit acting deliberately MILFy when we quit putting them under a microscope to pressure them to be in that mold.

I mean hey, I do derive pleasure from seeing her publicly mocked, but let’s keep it about her policies not her body.

From what I read, Runner’s World did not give them permission, but because the original photographer retained the rights, they didn’t need it. He allowed them to reprint it.