<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" Did you see Cosmo&amp;#039;s searing exploration of Olympic bulges the other day? You didn&amp;#039;t? Shame on you \u2014 go peep it immediately. Here&amp;#039;s why you should, besides the obvious appeal of seeing a very detailed outline of an Olympic peen: Cosmo got yelled at for it. Specifically, an agent who reps two of the bulge-owning male athletes demanded it be removed from Cosmopolitan.com. Fortunately, the guys themselves had other ideas.    @Cosmopolitan I don&amp;amp;#39;t have a publicist only an agent. No clue why she would say that. @StevenLangton and me like the article so post away. \u2014 John Daly (@JohnDalyUSA) February 12, 2014   The controversy over sexualizing public figures this way, when they haven&amp;#039;t specifically asked for it, isn&amp;#039;t an isolated incident. Objectifying women, reducing them to nothing but body parts, has been de rigeur in our celeb culture for as long as I can remember \u2014 but every time in recent memory that a famous man has received the same treatment, his team immediately demands that we Respect The Craft of This Very Serious Man. Take the Great Jon Hamm Commando Episode of 2012 \u2013 2013. Homeboy was walking around New York City without underwear on, there was a line-drawing of his junk in those sweatpants, and the Internet reacted accordingly. I made a slideshow. You&amp;#039;re welcome. So what happened? AMC became greatly concerned that Jon Hamm&amp;#039;s visible scrote was detracting from his Very Serious Acting on Mad Men and told him to put at least a thin layer of cloth between Little Hamm and the rest of society. And Hamm himself was pretty disgruntled by all the press: &amp;quot;They&amp;#039;re called &amp;#039;privates&amp;#039; for a reason. I&amp;#039;m wearing pants, for fuck&amp;#039;s sake. Lay off. I mean, it&amp;#039;s not like I&amp;#039;m a fucking lead miner. There are harder jobs in the world. But when people feel the freedom to create Tumblr accounts about my cock, I feel like that wasn&amp;#039;t part of the deal.&amp;quot; Boo hoo, Jon Hamm. Here&amp;#039;s an idea: Google Image search &amp;quot;actress cameltoe.&amp;quot; Think about all the times you&amp;#039;ve seen upskirt paparazzi shots of Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton or Britney Spears or Anne Hathaway or any number of other actresses. It doesn&amp;#039;t stop at crotches, either: Try &amp;quot;Sarah Jessica Parker hands.&amp;quot; Anyone ever seen a post about Harrison Ford&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;old-looking&amp;quot; hands? Or a roundup of Christian Bale&amp;#039;s swollen feet and footwear faux pas? No. Even in the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe&amp;#039;s measurements meant more to studios and audiences than her talent. Americans been slicing, dicing and scrutinizing actresses&amp;#039; bodies since before the first talkie. There are entire fetish databases that show photos of just famous womens&amp;#039; feet. And these are serious actresses and athletes I&amp;#039;m talking about \u2014 Lolo Jones, Dame Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep. The FIRST thing you get when you type Meryl Streep into Google is &amp;quot;meryl streep feet.&amp;quot;  To malign male objectification as condescending and unfair while embracing the objectification of women is a problem. Athletes and performers&amp;#039; bodies are their tools, so I&amp;#039;m not calling for everyone to suddenly stop judging them on their looks or physique. But it&amp;#039;s only fair that both sexes are objectified equally. Now, if you&amp;#039;ll excuse me, I am going to go Google &amp;quot;Michael Fassbender penis.&amp;quot;  Follow Anna on Twitter. Photo Credit: Getty "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a20359/why-bulges-matter/>