There was a very sexist photograph

on the front page of our state newspaper two days ago. It was a picture of a male cyclist in the Tour Down Under being kissed by two females.
Yesterday there was a letter to the editor mildly criticising this. There was nothing more. Why?
If this had been a photograph of a female being kissed by males there would have been outrage. People would have screamed "sexism" and "harassment" and "inappropriate behaviour". 
Instead people just said, "It's traditional." 
Really? The Senior Cat thought it was sexist.
I was at a meeting yesterday afternoon. It was all females. I suppose that was "sexist" too but it wasn't intentional. If a male had wandered in we would have welcomed him - but we would not have kissed him, not even one we knew well. 
I do wonder at the message that photograph sent, particularly as a politician was forced to resign his ministry a little while back over what was considered to be "inappropriate" behaviour. (Yes, it was inappropriate.) We seem however to be saying it's all right to show that sort of thing if people agree. What's this sporting "hero" supposed to do? It's not sporting to refuse to have your photograph taken in this way is it? 
I want to know why the double standards. Why is it all right when the roles are reversed? Why is it all right when it is "sport" related?
It doesn't matter that someone "agreed" because there is still that subliminal message there.
Wouldn't it have been better to show this "hero" on his  bike? After all that would send a subliminal message of another sort.