Reader comments
Doug Robinson: Andrews incident has its irony

unholyone | 3:50 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

Isn't the real hypocrisy here the fact that women reporters demand the right to enter men's locker rooms where the men are undressed -- and then they complain that someone watches one of them undresssd? I'd have more sympathy for anyone else's privacy being invaded. Now they know what it feels like and they don't like it.

John Doe | 6:56 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

WHAT!!! Being good looking and famous doesn't allow people to intrude into your personal life. I can't believe you would actually say the things you did in your article. You're opinion is discusting. Is your wife attractive? If so, then it would be ok to pry into your personal life and take nude pictures of her. She asked for it right?? That's what happens when you are attractive. Grow up and try living somewhat outside of Utah.

Not "discusting" | 7:19 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

I don't know if we read the same article Mr. Doe. It seems like to me that the point he's making is that nowadays women in sports are sometimes making themselves more into "sex objects" (to use his phrase). It's not so much whether they're attractive or not, it's using the looks to get attention. I think the columnist's point is that it's ironic that some women work so hard to get attention by using their looks, and then they get unwanted attention.

Comments continue below

Bear Laker | 8:24 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

Hey, John Doe. Read the entire piece.

once again | 10:11 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

Once again, beyond any shadow of a doubt, men have proven just how disgusting they are--can one even imagine a woman photographer taking such a picture?

For: Once Again @ 10:11 | 10:58 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

"once again | 10:11 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009
Once again, beyond any shadow of a doubt, men have proven just how disgusting they are--can one even imagine a woman photographer taking such a picture?"

No, once again, someone, in this case a woman, has facts plainly laid out and refuses to see how the group they belong to, the female sex, is actually a contributing cause to the problem at hand.

In short, lady, I don't know who treated you wrong at some point in your life but all men are not dogs. Good luck learning that truth, and I mean that very sincerely.

Dan M.

Phyllis | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

Making yourself into a "sex object" doesn't give some pervert the right to put a camera on you motel room door peephole (where there is an obvious expectation of privacy) and videotape you doing what you would obviously do in a motel room. It is just sick!

Read the Article | 11:42 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

I'm pretty sure Robinson said he did not condone the video taping. Andrews, of course, didn't deserve this, but he makes an interesting point about using your looks to get ahead, and then complaining about all the attention you do get.

dbf | 11:57 a.m. Aug. 4, 2009

The problem is that no one would pay to see John Madden nude. It's all about money.

Jason | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 4, 2009

So what you're saying, Doug, is that rape is wrong, but if a woman is hot enough and flaunts her looks then, well, it's her fault for being sexy and appealing.

You come across as bitter and out of touch. Neither will help you be a journalist. What is the point of your article? That we're hypocrites for admitting that sex sells? Or that she's a hypocrite for making the most out of what God gave her?

And just for the record, I have yet to see Erin Andrews scantily-clad on Hot Clicks. She's just a beautiful woman who has embraced the blogging and online culture. Don't knock her for that, and don't knock SI for knowing what works.

Abominous | 4:06 p.m. Aug. 4, 2009

The real hypocrite here is Doug Robinson, leering in print at Erin Andrews and other attractive woman who happen to appear on-camera at sporting events. He's the print equivalent of the paparazzi, exploiting the very thing he claims to find so unwholesome.

Write about something that actually matters, Doug, or else go get a job at the Globe. A real gentleman knows when to avert his eyes and keep his mouth shut.

RE: Phyllis | 5:30 p.m. Aug. 4, 2009

Men have an OBVIOUS expectation of privacy in the locker room,

but do women reporters have the decency to respect that?

Cori | 6:23 p.m. Aug. 4, 2009

People really need to read the ENTIRE article and stop putting words into Doug's mouth. He didn't say she was asking for it by being attractive or that videotaping her was alright. He just wanted to make the point that women keep fighting for men to accept them for their intelligence and talent and then turn around and do a swimsuit ad with an itsy bitsy bikini. That's the hypocrisy.

Nice Doug | 2:57 p.m. Aug. 5, 2009

Think you can make any wine with all of those sour grapes ? I know it may be hard for you to understand when you have a face and body for newspaper, but women, even attractive women, just may be able to do the job they're hired for. How long do you think she would keep her job if she didn't play up her attractiveness ? Duh ... she must have gotten what she deserved right ?

realistwhoactuallyreadthecolumn | 12:41 a.m. Aug. 6, 2009

as i read these comments and comments on other articles i find myelf worrying that humans are getting dimmer. doug is obviously not saying erin asked for the peepholed video,(though he should have chosen his words more carefully as americans have turned into a mob of anonymous computer geeks hell bent on searching the web finding people with real opinions, brave enough to share them, to criticize) he is simply stating that it brought to light a realization of women who on one hand say don't judge us by our looks and on the other hand play to a mans need to see any public figure that happens to be female, nude or close to it. agree or disagree but have the decency to actually read someones work and then at least criticize him for what he ACTUALLY said.erin andrews was the smallest part of this story. (here come the critcizers:)

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.