|
On June 08 2013 02:36 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote:
[...] This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
[...]
Please try to look that up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Men benefit more from above average attractiveness than women. At least that's the way I remember it from sociological studies about what attractiveness changes in how an observer perceives things.
Find me an extremely attractive male celebrity who is relatively un-talented and rose to fame solely because of his sexuality. , There's plenty of people who could subjectively called less talented but good looking, but certainly there's no male Kardashian equivalent.
Among those whose job is to sell their sexuality in the most literal sense, sex workers and adult performers, who gets paid more/has more opportunity? Males or Females? Don't most gay male sex workers make more than straight ones?
I'm personally going to be immediately skeptical of any studies published under a sociology heading because sociology very often (though not always) has an affiliation with a certain destructive and academically dishonest ideology which has grasped the affluent western world. I could certainly be swayed by something published in a reputable journal of social psychology. But of course the money talks, look at pornography salaries.
|
On June 08 2013 02:50 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:36 Ropid wrote:On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote:
[...] This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
[...]
Please try to look that up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Men benefit more from above average attractiveness than women. At least that's the way I remember it from sociological studies about what attractiveness changes in how an observer perceives things. Find me an extremely attractive male celebrity who is relatively un-talented and rose to fame solely because of his sexuality. ,
Ricky Martin.
99% of all boy group members.
|
On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:43 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 01:41 Drowsy wrote: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? Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?"
so you didn't read whatI wrote?
"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."
Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet.
" I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female"
its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not?
and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you.
|
Certainly, women in sports are sexualised more than men.
Women can't compete with males in terms of actual sports performance so they need something to make them relevant - a unique selling point, as it were. One of their "USPs" is sexuality.
|
On June 08 2013 02:52 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 01:43 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 01:41 Drowsy wrote: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? Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?" so you didn't read whatI wrote? "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." Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet. " I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female" its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not? and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you.
I'm kind of sick of the personal attacks and the "you this" and "you that" you're extrapolating from me pointing out easily observed societal tendencies. The spelling mistakes, apparent near-illiteracy, and incoherence aren't making this any more pleasant either. So yes, I think we finally agree on something.
|
On June 08 2013 02:57 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:52 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote:On June 08 2013 01:43 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 01:41 Drowsy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?" so you didn't read whatI wrote? "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." Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet. " I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female" its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not? and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you. I'm kind of sick of the personal attacks and the "you this" and "you that" you're extrapolating from me pointing out easily observed societal tendencies. The spelling mistakes and incoherence aren't making this any more pleasant either. So yes, I think we finally agree on something.
Pointing out that you are using social tendancies, hereditary prejudices, and animal instincts, to argue about modern morals is not a personal attack mate.
|
I'm only observing these pictures of female sports athletes for the detached, academic purpose of analyzing how much they focus on their sheer skill and endurance.
I don't think women in sports showing sexuality for increased money, fame, and viewership is a complex issue. The incentives are there, the market follows.
|
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there.
And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there.
|
United States24698 Posts
On June 08 2013 03:05 rezoacken wrote:
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there.
And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there.
When you consider how much hard work and concentration is required to become a top player in a sport (men's or women's), I think you find it takes a lot more than a willingness to sell your visual prowess to be successful, financially or otherwise. To suggest anything to the contrary is actually rather offensive to these athletes.
|
Humans are sexual beings, it is only natural that they mix it in everywhere, anything else would be unnatural to them.
|
On June 08 2013 03:07 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 03:05 rezoacken wrote:
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there.
And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there. When you consider how much hard work and concentration is required to become a top player in a sport (men's or women's), I think you find it takes a lot more than a willingness to sell your visual prowess to be successful, financially or otherwise. To suggest anything to the contrary is actually rather offensive to these athletes.
Oh for sure, I'm not discrediting that ? I'm just answering OP, saying there's nothing new and done for the money.
If you thought I meant they are in their place because of their physic, you're misreading/misinterpreting. I implied that they just exploit their physic once they're in the spot.
|
This question is far too complex to discuss in a forum topic, imho. The primary problem is that the OP does not even address it properly.
It presents its primary point in an incredibly biased manner. It throws out some of the ugliest male sporters, and compares them to some of the prettiest female sporters and says "gosh, these guys aren't known for their looks, whereas these girls are. Must be because sport is run by a bunch of sexist macho pigs".
The problem is FAR more complex than this. For one, there are plenty of male sports stars who girls swoon over. Gerard Piqué, Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Roger Federer, Pieter van den Hoogenband, Michael Schumacher.
There are also plenty of female sports stars who are not generally considered pretty and are still be featured on sports magazine covers for their outstanding performances. For instance, Arantxa Sanchez, Martina Navratilova, both of the Williams sisters, Caster Semenya, Gunda Niemann, Abby Wambach, Marta.
However, that's not to say that there is no sexist bias in sports. Firstly, it is fairly common knowledge that men are more visually stimulated, so if there is a pretty female sports star she is more likely to be objectified than her male counterpart. Whether that is sexist, or simply capitalist is a complex question.
Secondly, female sports are given less attention than male sports. There is significantly less female sports on tv than male sports. That means women sports stars have less opportunity to get recognized for their sports accomplishments. So a pretty sports star who gets attention outside of her sport (modeling, advertising, etc) will get more exposure there than through televised sports. Oppose this to a football player like Cristiano Ronaldo, or a tennis player like Roger Federer, who are universally recognized as some of the absolute best in their sports, and only secondarily as pretty boys.
So... a more appropriate question would be whether female sporters earning money with their good looks is a problem? I honestly don't think so. It also brings additional attention to women's sports, which they really need.
|
This is not sports exclusive. And this thread is unnecessary.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I preferred the part of the thread where we posted pictures of hot female athletes...what happened to that.
|
Lets be honest without it not enough people would watch or support the woman version of the sport. Hell womens sports barely get enough attention now. So even though its sexist its a good thing because it gives elite woman atheletes something to shoot for imo. (And the guys ennjoy it)
|
I'm confused as to what problem the OP is trying to point out. For both men and women, success in sports has nothing to do with looks, so the discussion is about the action of these successful women athletes (that have the potential to look good) and/or the organizations that market them and their sport.
Is the problem here that women's sports are supposedly naturally less popular than men's sport and thus has to resort to having its athletes show some leg? Or is the problem that top athletes are supposedly pressured into looking sexy to make money?
The first problem is solutionless as far as I can tell and the second one sounds unlikely to be true if you consider how much top athletes earn, even female ones (so arguing that they're being exploited is out of the question). In my opinion, female athletes should be allowed to market their image how they see fit, so I don't see the any issue here.
Never mind the existence of ugly female athletes (aka, the majority, judging by the olympics).
|
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote:![[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) 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.
And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period.
Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks.
And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid athletes in the world.
|
On June 08 2013 03:36 DDie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: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. And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period. Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks. And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid atheletes in the world (because he sells).
Well, female tennis in general is more popular than female football, so that's a false comparison. Martina Navratilova and the Williams sisters are better comparison material. And I'd argue they are more popular than Sharapova or Azarenka. Regardless, Sharapova and Azarenka probably make more money because they are more marketable. But that's not exclusive to women (as you pointed out with Beckham) or even sports.
|
Women in sports are not specifically sexualized. Its more that western cultures sexualizes women in general both professionally and privately. This leads to magazines and other media sexualizing women when they are presenting them to be consumed. Not necessarily because "Hey, this girl sucks at _____ lets sex her up to sell her."
The media doesn't care how good or bad someone is. They grab someone that sells (from any industry) and market that person however the general populous treats that specific gender.
So long as the population keeps being sexist, the media will continue to be sexist. When the population stops being sexist, the media will also stop being sexist. Corporations will do whatever makes money, so when you see some athlete being oversexualized it isn't the fault of the media objectifying that person, it's the fault of the population that maintains that media.
|
On June 08 2013 03:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 03:36 DDie wrote:On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: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. And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period. Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks. And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid atheletes in the world (because he sells). Well, female tennis in general is more popular than female football, so that's a false comparison. Martina Navratilova and the Williams sisters are better comparison material. And I'd argue they are more popular than Sharapova or Azarenka. Regardless, Sharapova and Azarenka probably make more money because they are more marketable. But that's not exclusive to women (as you pointed out with Beckham) or even sports.
On the issue of soccer vs tennis, it's good to remember that tennis is also a "higher class" sport than soccer, so better-looking people all around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://files.sharenator.com/35_Anna_Kournikova_Hot100_l-s400x500-29200.jpg)
