|
On June 08 2013 01:10 Orangered wrote:Uhm, nope. It is the contrary actually, more proof of women's sexuality being used for male enjoyment = sexualization of women, not as athletes though in this case.
I think the point being made is that the sport will be made sexual to bring in a higher audience. If a majority of the viewer base was women you'd probably see guys running around trying to be sexy instead.
|
On June 08 2013 01:00 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:54 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote:
Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain. wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively? I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat? A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe. so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday. You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger? Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote:
its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not. omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation.
underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). If I was a tall, lanky, butchy WNBA player who was making significantly less money and accruing less sponsorships/recognition than worse basketball players who were simply prettier of course I'd be pissed.
But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
|
United States22883 Posts
It seems to me that the OP contains a whole lot of assumptions about who watches sports and for what reasons. You really don't think Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte were objectified by anyone during the Olympics? Footballers and basketball players don't get objectified? Not only are they objectified in a sexual manner, but they're even objectified in a very general way. We send them to combines to measure their physical attributes, one after another like processing cattle.
Even the examples you give show that performance really isn't everything. Kimbo Slice, Brock Lesnar, Chris Bosh. Why are these the names that you remember? It's not due to their dominance in sport.
When asked about the possibility of there being a female NBA player:Battier was also asked if he thought it would just be a publicity stunt and turn into a sideshow if it happened.
"Listen, this whole thing is a sideshow," Battier said. "What's one more trailer on this sideshow?"
He's right. This is the entertainment industry and players are not paid by performance. They're paid by marketability, whether male or female or anything else. It just so happens that performance contributes greatly to marketability, but it's nowhere near the be all and end all.
|
On June 08 2013 00:50 Kamakiri wrote:
I would only watch women sports for looks tbh, i see no reason to watch female hockey, football, etc.
To be honest, a few years ago, Women's tennis was hugely popular in Belgium because of Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters. Neither of them is physically attractive but people just wanted to see their fellow countrywomen beat other players.
Is sports sexualised? It obviously is, to a certain extent. Athletics features a lot of scantly dressed men and women with bodies a lot of people find attractive, and athletes are often aware of that. There are of course men and women who do not want to sexualize themselves because of cultural reasons (think of muslim athletes) or because they just don't care. A lot of female track runners wear little more than very small bikini bottoms/hotpants nowadays but I doubt that wearing normal shorts would hurt their results much. You don't see men running in their undies either.
However, I don't think people of either sex watches sports just to see the bodies of trained athletes. In the end, most people watch sports to see amazing physical feats or to cheer for their favourite player or team. If that athlete is good looking, well, that's nice bonus.
Sport's popularity has little to do with sexuality. Football players are often very dense or ugly, but their skills are respected by almost literally everyone, and football is by far the most popular sport in the world.
Another example: starcraft 2. Most pro players fall in one of the following categories, or a combination of them: obese, underweight/scrawny, socially awkward. There are very few "normal" progamers, mainly because being a progamer is in no society except South Korea considered a normal occupation. Most people in their late teens or early twenties spend their time hanging out with friends, working or studying, not playing a single video game for ten to twelve hours a day. Still, does anyone here care? When I watch MLG, WCS, Dreamhack or any other tournament, I don't care what the person looks like because I'm busy being amazed at the way he plays the game.
|
wasnt that just warmup dance to get her body ready for the run?
|
On June 08 2013 01:08 Orangered wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:04 Zahir wrote:On June 08 2013 00:25 Orangered wrote:On June 08 2013 00:14 Zahir wrote:The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction. As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live. There is. I read earlier about dress codes! Uh huh. And if a baseball player thinks his skin tight, butt revealing pants are over the top and uncomfortable, or if a male athlete in the nfl isnt keen on having a female "interviewer" and camera crew ogling him and his friends in the locker room in various states of undress, they are in the exact same position. I mean... Forgive me, but I just don't get the point here. It isnt discrimination to want to watch the highest level of competition, which just happens to be found within the major male sports leagues. Like, what is the proposed solution? Force audiences to watch women's leagues more even though the level of competition is lower? Force female sports leagues to desexify their dress codes? And when ratings inevitably drop then what? Government subsidies? I dunno, I guess I'm just old fashioned or something. To me, sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. Not the failure of society to provide special privileges for female sports leagues so that only the male ones have to cater to the actual audiences and deal with problems of supply and demand. Dont derail the discussion. You mentioned agency, I simply answered you that there is no such thing in womens tennis as there is a required dress code that flatters their feminine aspect, therefore sexualization.
Male athletes are required to display themselves on national tv half naked, in a locker room, with a female interviewer standing right next to them. I challenge you to find a similarly extreme case of sexualization directed at female athletes, or cheerleaders for that matter.
|
On June 08 2013 01:25 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:00 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:54 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote:
Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain. wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively? I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat? A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe. so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday. You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger? Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote:
its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not. omg get back in your time machine please bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing. Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will. Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly.
additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population.
you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance.
most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
|
one thing that has to be kept in mind is that the ideal male body is very athletic/muscular, while the ideal female body is much slimmer and should only exhibit a mild degree of visible muscles. therefore, the amount of different sports in which the male athletes automatically have a body conforming to beauty standards is much higher than for females. female weightlifters or basketball players, for example, dont have bodies that conform with how the majority of us would paint the ideal female body. therefore, the degree of sexualization of females is not that high in these sports.
tennis, beach volleyball, figure skating, rythmic gymnastics, golf and some sorts of track and field are pretty much the only sports which naturally form a female body in the "ideal" way - therefore, it is not surprising that these are the sports where the majority of sexualization is taking place.
|
Im ashamed to say i came in this thread earlier and began reading, then saw pics of hot women and got sidetracked.
I just came back in here looking for more pics.
Im a bad person and prove this thread entirely correct in my situation
|
On June 08 2013 01:37 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:25 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 01:00 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:54 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote:
Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain. wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively? I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat? A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe. so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday. You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger? Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote:
its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not. omg get back in your time machine please bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing. Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will. Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots. you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right? and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified. immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman! Show nested quote +Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will. so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
Did you read anything I posted?
Actually, if I'm reading your post correctly, you're asserting that sexuality is not remotely biological and is 100% socially constructed. Not only that, but the "rules" of it are entirely made by males. If this is the case or anything near it, I'm afraid we live in different worlds can't have a civil conversation on this topic.
|
On June 08 2013 01:41 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:37 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 01:25 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 01:00 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:54 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote:
Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain. wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively? I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat? A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe. so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday. You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger? Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote:
its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not. omg get back in your time machine please bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing. Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will. Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots. you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right? and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified. immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman! Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will. so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men? Did you read anything I posted?
yup, you?
EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
do i understand correctly?
|
Just looking at this topic I knew the op is from Sweden. What is it with you Swedes and all this forced political correctness and feminism.
So maybe girls in sports are sexualized, who cares? I mean its a huge selling point for them, if I want to see real sports or athletes who show what is possible with the human body I would watch superior male athletes, looking sexy is probably one of the biggest selling points if you wanna get to the main sports audience
|
Hey... Many athletes are sexy people, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
If women's sports are "sexualized" then they should be happy, because that's a step toward equality. In ancient Greek art, Olympians are depicted as being completely naked. A strong, healthy physique and well-defined musculature is attractive to many people.
I can think of many male athletes who have been "sexualized":
David Beckham
Roger Federer
Christiano Ronaldo
Kobe Bryant
The OP is being very biased in male athlete selection. Brock Lesnar (would probably be intimidating to more people than he is attractive to)... Kimbo Slice (looks like someone out of a bum-fights DVD)... Wayne Rooney (scrappy, bull-doggish appearance)... I can think of some female athletes very easily who wouldn't be "sexualized" if they begged:
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/05/article-2184051-14660C6B000005DC-99_634x423.jpg)
|
Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
It really is that simple.
|
On June 08 2013 01:49 gedatsu wrote:
Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
It really is that simple.
I challenge you to lift what the woman in the picture above can.
|
I fail to see the point of this thread.
I may be able to offer my opinion if people post more pics of sexy girls in sports attire though 
|
I dont really see how this can be debated very effectively when we can all see that in the majority of cases, this is just apparent.
How about this view: Maybe we can assume that most people that watch sports are men. Okay and people want to watch the best, most physical and talented players play any given sport. As a general rule, men's sports happen to be played at a higher level than women's. Therefore, why would most watchers want to view sports at possibly a lower level? So in order to make women's sports more popular, how can you get the majority of the audience to watch? Capitalize on the attractiveness of the women to bring in male (and maybe female) viewers.
They do go overboard sometimes with over-sexualization, i think this is just the way its always gonna be if they want women's sports to get viewers
EDIT: As many other people just mentioned more succinctly above me
|
Sex sells. It's used in both men and women's sports advertising. One reason you see it as such for women is because you're a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman). It's all about target audience. Men's swimming is one primary counter example.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck. Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
She kinda looks like Kobe Bryant.
|
I just watch sports because I like sports. Male tennis, female tennis, it's all the same to me.
I do have to agree that Sharapova is a goddess, though.
|
On June 08 2013 01:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:49 gedatsu wrote:
Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
It really is that simple. I challenge you to lift what the woman in the picture above can.
For the most part I'm not that good either. That is why I don't get to do it on tv, and why there aren't million-dollar companies offering me money to put their logo on my clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Marta_at_Union_at_Earthquakes_2010-09-15.jpg/400px-Marta_at_Union_at_Earthquakes_2010-09-15.jpg)
