|
On June 10 2013 02:43 Asshat wrote:
Well, there's Serena Williams, who's a hideous monster. But she's an american, and a good women's tennis player who wins often. So it's not always 100% sexualisation, although it's still often the main reason. Armchair feminists might have a problem with it, but it's certainly not because of their middling level of competition that most people watch women's sports.
I personally don't watch any of it.
lol hideous monster? Really?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 10 2013 02:40 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 02:28 Dekoth wrote:On June 10 2013 02:09 Djzapz wrote:On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote:
Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home. I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak. Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport. this women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason
You clearly don't understand the point of sports. If physical ability defines how impressive a athlete is, then we would watch Cheetah's racing, rather than Usain Bolt, and we would watch Gorillas weightlifting instead of humans.
Sports is entertaining because it shows us what we are capable of. Women are capable of less, and we all know that, which means we are impressed by less. It's stupid to compare the physical accomplishments of men and women, because men get a lot for free. Who cares if the 10th best man can run a track 1 minute faster than the fastest woman. You can't compare apples and oranges. It's not the speed of Usain Bolt that makes him impressive, it's the fact that he runs so much faster than all the other male humans on this planet. I can agree that winning the ladies 100m is not as impressive as winning the male 100m's, but that's not because they're faster, rather it's because there are a lot more male runners than there are female runners. This is why female team sports tends to be cringe-worthy, because women who are serious about an athletic career tends to pick solo sports. If 1 in 10 of the swedish guys have played hockey in a club, the same number for girls is probably around 1 in 1000, if that, so the standards are pretty low.
In a sport like figure skating it's the opposite, there are more female skaters, and in the various national and world competitions there are several female figure skaters who can score higher technical points than all or most of the males, despite the fact that their legs are weaker, and they have worse stamina. Kim Yu Na is actually objectively a better figure skater than the best male south korean skater, basically she would win the national south korean gold even if she participated in the male class, and even if you removed the artistic values, it wouldn't change anything. Skating is not purely physical, and a woman who practices harder or is more talented, can objectively be a better skater than even the elite male skaters, or most of them. There are also more female skaters, which means that the average female figure skater is more talented and more serious about their sport. And like I pointed out before with Tennis, there are female tennis players in WTA who have better technique and reads the game better than most if not all of the men on the ATP.
The physical part is only part of what makes sports entertaining to watch.
Also for endurance sports, like cross country skiing there's no real difference in entertainment value, because the ladies have pretty much equal technique to the men, and the pace is not noticeably slower.
This idea that female sports only exists because men wants to have something beautiful to look at is pure bs. Maybe that's what it is for you, because you don't understand sports in general, or because you have some inferiority complex and refuse to admit that women can accomplish anything worth noting.
|
Erotic appeal isn't the only reason to prefer watching women plays sports over men. But if your priority is skill, it rarely makes sense to watch women's sports over men's.
@ninini: most human males are not physically capable of doing what Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps do, regardless of dedication. By this logic, shouldn't we applaud athletes not for their objective achievements but for how much they achieve relative to their innate advantages?
On a somewhat related note, I'm much more impressed by athletes for whom athleticism is secondary to some primary productive purpose.
|
On June 10 2013 02:46 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 02:40 PrideNeverDie wrote:On June 10 2013 02:28 Dekoth wrote:On June 10 2013 02:09 Djzapz wrote:On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote:
Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home. I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak. Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport. this women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason was going to post same exact thing.... people watch sports to see athletic excellence and people pushing the physical limits of the human body... Men are significantly better in EVERY sport, that both women and men compete in. It's essentially JV vs Varsity sports... Which gets more views? The only other way to get viewers is to draw people in with a combination of looks/skill which is why people like Danika r important for female sports.
Pushing physical limits of the human body is not reserved to men... People also get exited seeing athletes push the limits relative to their gender or an other limiting factor (weight and age particularly).
As far as the argument goes, it's completely stupid to say that a "sport purist" only watches for the best (men) skills.
There are plenty of example where limits in skills made the spectator's experience more interesting. A few years ago women's tennis at Wimbledon was more interesting than men's because they didn't have the ability to win points outright with their first serve and you could actually see some exchanges.
It's also untrue that men are significantly better in EVERY sport. Equitation, skating, diving, some of the gymnastic discipline have women who beat or would beat their men counterpart.
|
Don't forget that steroids abuse doesn't work in favor of women's looks. I think there are several female tennis players whose looks were destroyed once they decided to bulk up. (like Dementieva)
|
On June 10 2013 04:11 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 02:43 Asshat wrote:
Well, there's Serena Williams, who's a hideous monster. But she's an american, and a good women's tennis player who wins often. So it's not always 100% sexualisation, although it's still often the main reason. Armchair feminists might have a problem with it, but it's certainly not because of their middling level of competition that most people watch women's sports.
I personally don't watch any of it. lol hideous monster? Really? + Show Spoiler +
Is that second photo supposed to change my opinion on her looks?
|
beauty is subjective, but hideous monster is just downright disrespectful. however im sure the poster was exaggerating...
tbh i think many of the people who watch sports, the casual watchers, watch it because of its entertainment value, its something that you can bond over, bread and plays in the roman days, beer and football nowadays. i mean i watch the football league of my own country, and while im pretty interested in the sport (i used to play myself) if i was just interested in seeing the "best" football, i would watch only spanish liga and premier league and the champions league. i think this goes for many people who watch sports, they root for their home team, or their home country and while they respect and enjoy watching high level play, a true fan would stick with his team/player even if they suck.
|
I think I read that Sharapova is 188cm with 59kg, but Serena Williams is 175cm with 75kg, and that extra weight is all in power. I guess it's a look some people can find attractive.
|
Law of marketing dictates that everything that can be sexualized will be sexualized. If you want more people to watch your volleyball game do you give your players skimpy outfits or dress them up in rags? The answer is pretty obvious here.
|
|
|
On June 10 2013 07:14 Hyperbola wrote:
Law of marketing dictates that everything that can be sexualized will be sexualized. If you want more people to watch your volleyball game do you give your players skimpy outfits or dress them up in rags? The answer is pretty obvious here.
But you can't play really play volleyball wearing a gown. Short skirts, sports bra, and shorts in sports have a practical reason you know
|
Everything is sexualized. It is the reason why human's exist. The less sexually driven individuals made less children for thousands of years, while the most sexually driven ones made more children and hence we are all offspring of those individuals, AND WE INHERITED THEIR TRAITS. That is why we have the sexual drive, and men surely prefer watching sexually pleasing women in all walks of life, as do women who prefer sexually attractive males. Just look at boy bands.
That sexually pleasing females draw more spectators than non-attractive ones shouldn't come as a surprise, it is just the sum of evolution.
|
On June 10 2013 14:10 JimmiC wrote:
Men are far less likely to insult a man based on his good looks or be bitchy towards him then women are which was my point.
uh-huh, because it's not as important for a man to be attractive, because the nasty little sexist kernel that still kicks around just about any society is that most average-looking women have less to contribute than a man of commensurate physical attractiveness. most people are aware of this on some level, which certainly includes most-if-not-all women, which is where the concept of women being bitchier to their own gender comes from. society impresses upon young girls that looks matter overmuch, young girl feels insecurity, young girl displaces insecurity onto other girls who displace onto other girls and then we have an epidemic of anorexic/bulimia nervosa, all started and reinforced multiple times a day by society.
As for the boy band thing I have no idea what your point is. I think you just write "fuck them" and think that makes you bad ass or something. You say men sexualize them because they say women want them? So were women sexulizing kornikova when they said only reason she makes money is because of her looks and advertisers only pay her cause men want her? Please explain the difference, and this time take some time to think about it so you don't just come off as a self righteous pretentious douche who likes to read him self type. Thank you. If I had the time I would put together all your posts on this topic and point out every time u logically contradict yourself.
this is a stupid strawman to begin with, so I'm just going to point out that if women end up sexualizing kournikova in that way, it's a direct reaction to the more mainstream male hetero sexualization that got her onto the screen/into magazines in the first place. this discussion of boy bands or whatever the fuck is a pretty typical dodge into one of the very, very few arenas where saying males are equally discriminated against (not that males are never discriminated against, but that it is not done equally. please learn this difference) even has the premises to be taken seriously for a moment.
edit: do you think boy bands are the product of women marketing to women, or cynical men marketing to women? who has the power here?
|
On June 10 2013 14:43 HowardRoark wrote:
Everything is sexualized. It is the reason why human's exist. The less sexually driven individuals made less children for thousands of years, while the most sexually driven ones made more children and hence we are all offspring of those individuals. That is why we have the sexual drive, and men surely prefer watching sexually pleasing women in all walks of life, as do women who prefer sexually attractive males. Just look at boy bands.
That sexually pleasing females draw more spectators than non-attractive ones shouldn't come as a surprise, it is just the sum of evolution.
1) ...is it the reason why humans exist, or a consequence of humans existing? chicken and egg problem here, let alone the problematic usage of "everything".
2) the bolded suffers from either a really, really confusing timeline and understanding of evolution or poor writing. are you seriously contending the sexual drive stems from actions that...stem from a sexual drive?
3) yeah, boy bands keep coming up and I continue to not be impressed by the rare sighting of an aspect of society that actually sexualizes males to any observable, notable extent.
4) it's not surprising, it's just that, you know, society should probably aspire to be better than those cavemen you're bringing up. I would say that the implications of your outlook are worrying, but you really aren't saying much here to extrapolate anything from, mr. fountainhead.
|
On June 10 2013 14:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +Um... If you notice, my definition of sexualization matches the EU parliament.
Notice what your post says--with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
For example, Kornikova being popular despite never winning grand slam titles is an example of our sexualization of athletes.
Because when we give someone worth based on their looks instead of their achievements--we sexualized them.
And when did I say that men judge men more than women judge women? If you read, I find men sexualize boy bands more than women sexualize boy bands. Because women mostly want to fuck them, men are usually the ones who state that a boy band is only popular because women want to fuck them. Because, according to your EU parlament, sexualization is the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
Wanting to fuck someone is not measuring their worth--it's wanting to fuck them, by definition. Kornikova making so much money is not the sexualization of sport. because she is over 18 and knows what she is doing by the EU definition you say you read and were in agreement with. Secondly she got no advantages in the sport she got them in ADVERTISING dollars. Which she very well could have gotten by simply modeling. And I don't think you read the full definition. Or as usual you just twist it to fit your preconceived beliefs. I am glad I will never meet you in real life because it would be so frustrating to talk to some one so self righteous without an ounce of logic. I would also assume from the way you write that you consider yourself very intelligent and smarter then most everyone you meet. Some day I think you will come to find out because you only listen to your self, this is not true. You said men call tom Brady pretty and insult him based on his looks. And in doing so with the rest of your comments around you insinuated that this doesn't happen with women and is common in men. Men are far less likely to insult a man based on his good looks or be bitchy towards him then women are which was my point. As for the boy band thing I have no idea what your point is. I think you just write "fuck them" and think that makes you bad ass or something. You say men sexualize them because they say women want them? So were women sexulizing kornikova when they said only reason she makes money is because of her looks and advertisers only pay her cause men want her? Please explain the difference, and this time take some time to think about it so you don't just come off as a self righteous pretentious douche who likes to read him self type. Thank you. If I had the time I would put together all your posts on this topic and point out every time u logically contradict yourself.
Kornikova being sexy is not what sexualization is. Kornikova being in an ad is Kornikova being in an ad--by definition. Kornikova being loved for her ads more than for her results is sexualization--because her aesthetic is deemed of higher value than her accomplishments. Her being in an ad means nothing. Anyone can be in an ad. I've seen old people, young people, ugly people, pretty people. All demographics are in ads. Being in as doesn't make someone sexualized, valuing her for her looks instead of her accomplishments sexualizes her.
Women also sexualize. You, since sexualization is not the act of being attracted to others but the emphasizing of their looks over their accomplishments, you don't have to be a male sexualize someone. Men sexualize other men. Women sexualize other women. Men sexualize women and women sexualize men.
Once we emphasize a person's looks over their accomplishments, we sexualize them. It is the emphasizing of their looks that sexualizes them, not our attraction to them. A farmer fucking a sheep does not sexualize the sheep, because wanting to fuck something does not sexualize it.
Being sexy in an ad is not sexualization, because an ad is an as by definition. Being inherently beautiful is not sexualization, because how you look is simply how you look--by definition.
It is only when you determine someone's worth by their looks that sexualization occurs. Kornikova being loved despite lack of grand slams suggests sexualization. Tom Brady winning multiple Super Bowls and being loved does not suggest sexualization. Both athletes are considered good looking. Both have lots of people that want to fuck them. But while Brady has multiple championships that can suggest people love his success, Kornikova being popular despite lack of success shows that she is given more value for her looks than her accomplishments.
It doesn't matter how they look.
It doesn't matter if they are in ads or not.
Is their looks given more importance than their accomplishments? Then they are sexualized.
|
|
|
|
|
im surprised nobody has mentioned dog races yet  or is that just gambling and no sports? XD
|
On June 07 2013 22:17 Crownlol wrote:
This argument is incredibly weak. Some portion of marketing goes to sexualization - for example, women's tennis and volleyball players doing Clariol or Maybelline commercials- but on the whole no it is not.
Sex sells. It absolutely does. Picking the best-looking people in any given sport to use as figureheads for advertising has happened for dozens of years. Ricky Fowler has dozens of advertising deals only because he's a young, handsome guy- not because he's terribly good at golf. David Beckham is even MORE sexualized than any of the women you mentioned.
Additionally, the reason we watch the French Open and not the WNBA is that the level of competition is higher in women's tennis than in women's basketball. Women's pro basketball has a shockingly low level of competition- a good men's highschool team could probably beat most women's pro teams. However, top women tennis players are very, very good at tennis (much closer to the men in terms of performance, and the competition with each other is great).
Just wanted to highlight this, sex doesn't sell, it has been disproven several times.
|
Stupid fucking thread.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://us.cdn283.fansshare.com/photos/serenawilliams/full-serena-williams-1136454746.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://arodrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SerenaWilliamsESPNbodyIssue.jpg)
