Oh BBC home page picture editor could you be more annoying?

She just happens to be attractive

But that's the whole point - they didn't just randomly choose a young stereotypically attractive woman with flowing locks by random. This was a deliberate choice. Which is not representative of the actual people who the article is about.

Thanks for linking the article.

I'm surprised surprised that the name and story of the outdoors swimmer used on the clicky doesn't seem to be there?

(Not 😁)

Why not use the pic of hugh and the woman with the carrot? That's a good pic!

I didn't say it was unconnected. I said she was unconnected - the woman in the photograph they used to get people to click on the article. She is not one of the swimmers involved.

They have plenty of photos of those swimmers. I wonder why you think they didn't use them?

@StrangeLookingparasite I’m not. I’m amazed how you can tell me that I’m doing things I don’t even know I’m doing 🙄🙄

I was responding to the point that the woman was super thin. She isn’t. She looks healthy and has definition. It’s called context

No, you were deliberately inventing things and twisting what was said. This is not about you, why are you making it be?

@AbsintheFriends how is it unconnected? It’s an article about outdoor swimming and she’s outside in a swim suit. She’s good looking. Sue her. Yes they could have used one of the swimmers in the article. They probably would have used the very attractive one in the bikini. I’d hope that wouldn’t have been an issue.

Stock photos are used all the time. If they fit the brief I really can’t get upset about it. There are bigger fish to fry (no pun intended)

As I understand it, wild swimming is disproportionately popular with middle aged women. I am an occasional user of Hampstead Ponds and the user base is certainly older than this woman. Wonder why that is. Oh and yes, that’s not a suitable costume and no hat

@StrangeLookingParasite I was responding to the point that the woman was super thin. She isn’t. She looks healthy and has definition. It’s called context

www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/cold_water_swimming That's the article, with far more suitable photographs illustrating it.

She is also unconnected with the article strongmummy

Let's turn it around, shall we? Why do you think a picture of the actual swimmers featured in the piece wasn't used?

^Apologies if my physique offends.

@langittleclegabbage yes I’m very fortunate , but I also train hard.

I’m not missing the point. I have a different point of view. I don’t feel this woman is being objectified. It’s an article about open water swimming, she’s a fit looking woman who is outside in a swimming costume, not in a sexual pose, sitting and looking at water. It fits the brief! She just happens to be attractive and it’s that fact that seems to be the rub.

Basically, the picture editor could have used any of the many pictures (let's face it, hundreds probably) taken of the group of swimmers that Hugh F-W went swimming with.

Instead, the picture editor went off and found a picture of a very pretty woman sitting - not swimming!! - near the water.

Why did the pic ed do that? Because pretty woman = clicks. Pretty woman not wearing much = more clicks.

Woman = commodity.

Well done Strongmummy, you are obviously very pleased with yourself for winning the genetic lottery.

But you are missing the point. Using women as "decoration" does us all a disservice. Even the hot ones like yourself.

Kind of agree apart from that she's super thin. She's not.
She's not dressed for swimming though - no cap.

Can you link to the article? I am keen to find out the name of the woman it's about and what motivates her etc.

Too true. See also the financial pages, which use every opportunity to use pics of young, pretty women to illustrate the latest share fluctuations.

And exam results day. Obviously no male, non white or unattractive people take exams.

I agree.

And the point isn't even whether she's thin or fat. It would be equally demoralizing to use a prick click-bait photo of a sexualised, glamourised plus-sized woman. It's about objectifying women for cheap titillatory thrills for readers and normalising that, generally.

Meanwhile, in the photos related to the article, the people are allowed to appear 'unairbrushed' and unglamourised and 'human'. The click bait photo had been utilised so there was no need.

Do you not see that the point is that there isn't a picture of Hugh F-W, but a model in a swimsuit? I doubt that if it was an article about a young, slim woman swimming they would have a picture of a middle aged man instead

Exactly.

I saw a thread over on AIBU where someone was saying there should be a separate 'Gender' forum becuase all we talk about on FWR is 'gender' and not women's issues.

And when we do (which we do, regularly), the usual suspects wade in with the usual shite.

I have a bit of involvement in open water swimming and 99% of swimmers wear caps. Especially if they have long hair like the woman in the picture. (At the very least it would be tied up.)

In fact, they look far more like... the women in the article, who are actual open water swimmers but obviously weren't deemed attractive enough to tempt people to click

I don't know why evidence of the BBC's sexism still surprises and disappoints me, but it does. I guess because they are at such great pains to be cringingly respectful of other protected characteristics.

Yanbu I completely agree with you. It’s depressing. Why not just use a pic of the people in the article? We know why...

Ibloodylovewomen's point, is what I meant.

^ This.

@Fieldofgreycorn it’s an article about open water swimming .....she’s a swimmer....Hugh F-W is trying it out...but it’s about open water swimming.

Do you not see that the point is that there isn't a picture of Hugh F-W, but a model in a swimsuit? I doubt that if it was an article about a young, slim woman swimming they would have a picture of a middle aged man instead?