Nudity does not automatically equal sexualisation . The problem with TR's promotion is that they presented women as only sexual objects to help sell their wares, by using attractive nearly nude, body painted models uncessessarily. They are continuing with the tradition that women can only be sex kittens/whores or completely asexual (like mothers or good girls).
For most people, including women, sexuality and sex is only a part of their life. As most of us don't work in the sex industry, work, sleep, eating and other hobbies are the main parts of our life. Sex is important, but really, we're not doing it 24/7. They way society presents women as either/or misses out on all the other things we do.
As an example, most used car salesmen are men, but by no means are all men used car salesmen. So we don't automatically treat all men as sleazy and slimy. Neither do we do the opposite and treat non-carsalesmen men as absolute saints either. Similarly women are not indiviudals who are sex/no sex binary forms. Just like men, we fall on the continuum.
Women's equality is decidedly unsexy - because there is little sex to be had. Seeing women as autonomous, competent individuals with their own money means not seeing them as only things to have sex with. This is where TR fails - cycling is not sexy, it has little to do with sex.
Great customer service, for instance, has very little sex involved. My ovaries are not going to burst if I see a good selection of bikes I might be able to demo ride straight away, but I'll be appreciative and part with my money. Imagine going into 10 bike stores and only 1 of those stores having 1 bike that you could ride without significant after market changes or being charged pro prices for a 3rd tier bike - this is what bike purchasing is like for me, even though I can see through magazines and online that there is quite the selection of appropriate geometry bikes for me to ride (all they while having quite a few of the shop assistants try to steer you to a ladeez townie bike that is completely unsuitable for AM purposes or come up with some incomprehensible reason why they can't get a bike in for a demo or that it will take weeks and weeks and weeks. Or talk over to you to your male partner about parts and set up. True story bro).
Buying a bike is not sexy - fun and exciting but not cause for getting a boner/ladyboner. So why use women in a sexualised context (with their tits and arse out for all to see) for a non-sexual business? (And yes women's breasts are still seen as sexual features in our society at the current time, not to mention that the girls were only wearing G strings under all that paint. Where else do you see girls walking around in only g-strings? Oh yes, that's right. A strip club).
Also many women in cycling do not look like these promo girls. Think Anna Meares, Tai Lee Muxlow or even Rachel Atherton. They are not sexy in the traditional sense - but they are extremely competent, successful individuals.
When TR talks about 'supporting women's cycling' they are quite obviously just stating a politically correct line. They are 'pink washing' (if pink wasn't so closely aligned with breast cancer). By their actions we can see that they do not walk their talk. They can wear as much pink as they like and bleat "we'z just mizunderstood." (or my favourite) "we were being ironic" - it doesn't actually make them women 'friendly' until they start with acting women friendly.
