EPTAnd since when is Azarenka attractive?
Is women's sport sexualized? - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
unteqair
United States308 Posts
And since when is Azarenka attractive? | ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside. And since when is Azarenka attractive? Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On June 08 2013 04:06 kochanfe wrote: Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson? Context context context! | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Are you suggesting LBJ wasn't athletic? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On June 08 2013 04:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: Are you suggesting LBJ wasn't athletic? well even i could dunk on him now | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
lol /bow down to how awesome that retort is  | ||
|
NTTemplar
609 Posts
On June 08 2013 02:15 aTnClouD wrote: Beauty gives women power and people take advantage of it to make money. This is as old as humans. Not false, but I'd still like to expand that to: Being attractive gives people power, and people take advantage of it to make money. Both men and women benefit greatly from being attractive, ignoring the fact that its both genders opens up many gender based rude remarks, like this thread has shown to a degree. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 08 2013 03:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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. Your entire thought process rests upon the sex-negative assumption that "objectification" or "sexualization" is sexist. In reality, viewing others as sexual beings is a normal part of healthy human sexual behavior, and the whole obsession with "objectification" is nothing more than the demonization of normal sexual desires. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 08 2013 03:07 micronesia wrote: 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. I believe the point being made is that marketing your own sexuality does not make you a victim of sexism, contrary to those who like to perpetuate female victimology. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 08 2013 04:58 NTTemplar wrote: Not false, but I'd still like to expand that to: Being attractive gives people power, and people take advantage of it to make money. Both men and women benefit greatly from being attractive, ignoring the fact that its both genders opens up many gender based rude remarks, like this thread has shown to a degree. Taking advantage of being attractive =/= being sexualized. A good looking guy with the same qualifications as an ugly guy is more likely to be popular/advanced--but that doesn't mean that his boss wants to fuck him on the carpet. It's simply our societal standards of placing value on aesthetics. Sexualized is when the idea of sex replaces or comes out in front of the object in question. Here's an example. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html The article talks about this awesome pole vaulter and that the reason she's special is that she's a model too. They then compare her as the next "Alison Stokke" who got famous for being good looking when doing her warm ups as opposed to someone like Blanka Vlašić. We are not even given the girl's name until the third paragraph where we are then told that she's actually broken high jump records previously set by other eventual Olympiads; but the story itself focuses on her beauty and on her similarity to other high jumpers also praised for their beauty. Her record breaking feat is actually put as a backdrop that enhances the fact that she's beautiful. That is what sexualizing means. It's not simply that we find someone sexually attractive, that's a natural act. Sexualize is when we prioritize the aesthetics of the person over the accomplishments of the person. Beckham, for example, still has fame because he did well for England and he was really good looking so a lot of women started watching futbol also. But, when Beckham is being interviewed, when he is on magazine covers, does the media talk about the shape of his abs or the look of his skin while he sweats in the field. Do they say "Omg Beckham, you look just like Ricky Martin, when you were out there I felt like I was watching the next Justin Beiber." No, they don't, they still acknowledge either his current or past play skill, and even play it up to be a lot more than it actually is/was. They don't tell the world that he's the next Hoyt Richards. It's very easy to confuse this, especially with how young the demographic of TL is, but complaints about "sexualizing ______" is not a complaint on being attracted to or finding a specific person or persons attractive. It is the juxtaposition of a person's worth being leaned more heavily on their attractiveness moreso than their accomplishments. This isn't a sports problem, lots of industries have this problem. The problem isn't finding something sexually pleasing, the problem is equating that sexuality as one of the more important traits of the person. I used Ricky Martin as an example, to show how this isn't a female issue, but a societal issue. Ricky Martin is a singer first, entertainer second. And yet, I've seen a few people in this thread disparage his skillset as being "boy band" suggesting that his talent as a musician is less meaningful and less important than his good looks. I even used him as an example earlier to make the point more apparent. In that moment of my comparing Ricky Martin to Beckham, I was sexualizing both Ricky Martin and Beckham because I was making the suggestion that it is their looks that is their main trait, as opposed to it being simply one of the many traits they have. It seemed normal, because we live in a sexist society where sexualizing people is deemed normal. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:07 sunprince wrote: Your entire thought process rests upon the sex-negative assumption that "objectification" or "sexualization" is sexist. In reality, viewing others as sexual beings is a normal part of healthy human sexual behavior, and the whole obsession with "objectification" is nothing more than the demonization of normal sexual desires. I disagree. Objectification means treating a person as a thing. which is not healthy human sexual behavior. EDIT:+ Show Spoiler + On June 08 2013 05:11 sunprince wrote: I believe the point being made is that marketing your own sexuality does not make you a victim of sexism, contrary to those who like to perpetuate female victimology. why would someone make such an irrelivant point? like who is even talking about that? and who are these people who think so I have never heard anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues claim anyone from sex workers to models is a victim of sexism based on their career choice :/ | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:07 sunprince wrote: Your entire thought process rests upon the sex-negative assumption that "objectification" or "sexualization" is sexist. In reality, viewing others as sexual beings is a normal part of healthy human sexual behavior, and the whole obsession with "objectification" is nothing more than the demonization of normal sexual desires. Finding someone attractive is not sexualizing them. Equating their attractiveness with their worth as a human being is what sexualizes them. For example, most men I know sexualize the Backstreet Boys saying they're only famous because of their fangirl groupies wanting to have sex with them. This creates the correlation that it is the backstreet boy's looks that is earning them success moreso than their efforts and hence is sexualizing them. The men I know who do this aren't actually having the hots for the backstreet boys, they simply demean them by insinuating that their looks are what matters and not their talent. | ||
|
Sephiren
United States85 Posts
The argument for this case is that when it comes to men sports, appearance is not much of or at all a factor of popularity, as long as they are great athletes at their sports. So Beckham... So Ryan Lochte... So Tom Brady... So Rafael Nadal... Sex sells. I'm guessing you just notice the women more because you're attracted to them. Also, if you're talking about sports with other guys, or reading article written by guys, there is an obvious attraction-bias there. Who cares about Sharapova's pasing shots or Jenneke's pacing. We simply want to admire their faces and bodies, mostly. This is not the case with men's sports. We dont watch the La Liga or UEFA, or NBA or whatever else in order to admire how handsome the male athletes are. Well, I care about Sharapova's passing shots if i'm rooting for her. Obviously someone who doesn't isn't rooting for her, and then isn't really a fan anyways, but probably is still a straight man. Women might watch La Liga to see how handsome the men are, and i'm betting you might too if you were gay. Have you seen Pique? You will be hard put to find someone who will tell you that Messi is good looking, although he is, but everyone will immediately tell you how great he is at football. To be honest, Messi is not that attractive (objectively), although women might find him attractive because of his ability. I also wouldn't tell you Serena Williams is attractive (just not my type), but she's a women and really good. Also, to be fair, Serena gets way more attention than Maria. One last thing to consider. Beauty is much more significant for women than for men. Power and success play a MUCH larger role in how attractive a woman considers a man than vice versa. When you consider the HUGE investment women make to have children, it makes sense to weigh those factors more heavily when considering a mate (not to get all science-y on you). Where as a man invests almost 0 energy into having offspring, and since beauty if often representative of good genes, and curvy hips of good child-bearing capabilities-- I don't think we can blame ourselves too much for wanting every women out there, and paying particular attention to the really attractive ones. | ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
I couldnt care less about someone like Sharapova. Women´s tennis is boring as fuck and Sharapova moans like a pig everytime she hits the ball. Why do people even watch that?? On top of that I dont find her that attractive. Anna Kournikova was much better looking. I do watch sports with female athletes but its pretty much restricted to wintersports like Cross Country skiing, Biathlon and Alpine Skiing so for me the stars are Charlotte Kalla, Darya Domracheva and Lindsey Vonn. I find them all attractive to some extend, but I can certaintly appriciate their skills on a pair of ski´s, as well as all the hard work they put into their sport. In fact, if they werent that good I prolly wouldnt find them attractive. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:33 Sephiren wrote: One last thing to consider. Beauty is much more significant for women than for men. Power and success play a MUCH larger role in how attractive a woman considers a man than vice versa. When you consider the HUGE investment women make to have children, it makes sense to weigh those factors more heavily when considering a mate (not to get all science-y on you). Where as a man invests almost 0 energy into having offspring, and since beauty if often representative of good genes, and curvy hips of good child-bearing capabilities-- I don't think we can blame ourselves too much for wanting every women out there, and paying particular attention to the really attractive ones. Most models and actresses do not fit the "child bearing hips" requirements of being someone who can bear offspring well. Though they do fit the body of almost starving adults in some war torn countries, but with a lot of make up and photoshop. For us to want that we'd have to want larger, less skinny women, who have high estrogen levels--which cuts out a lot of athletes. Not that I'm disagreeing with your theory, just that the women we normally sexualize do not fit the template of perfect child bearers. And really, if we did evolve to want to focus on child rearing, wouldn't we instead focus on having the lifestyle of high poverty stricken countries with little to no healthcare? Those countries produce more children than any first world nation, if you honestly believe beauty is about instinctually following what breeds more kids, we would celebrate those bodies and those lifestyles wouldn't we? | ||
|
unteqair
United States308 Posts
On June 08 2013 04:06 kochanfe wrote: Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson? In a 5th grade social studies class, yes! Not on a forum of athleticism specifically mentioning LeBron James. Yes, though, that is usually what it stands for if you are seriously wondering. | ||
|
LOveRH
United States88 Posts
I saw a very troubling speech at my college about sexism in the music business and jesus christ, basically stated that if you don't sell yourself for your looks and/or sexuality as a woman (even if you have an amazing voice) you will never go anywhere. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote: I disagree. Objectification means treating a person as a thing. which is not healthy human sexual behavior. There's a reason I put "objectification" in quotes. The whole point is that what is commonly demonized as "objectification" is nothing more than finding someone sexually attractive, which doesn't actually treat them as a thing. On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote: why would someone make such an irrelivant point? like who is even talking about that? and who are these people who think so I have never heard anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues claim anyone from sex workers to models is a victim of sexism based on their career choice :/ A large number of people here are arguing that portraying women sexually is sexist. The majority of feminists argue that sex workers are victims. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Finding someone attractive is not sexualizing them. Equating their attractiveness with their worth as a human being is what sexualizes them. True. The problem is, you haven't demonstrated that portraying women sexually is "equating their attractiveness with their worth". On June 08 2013 05:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: For example, most men I know sexualize the Backstreet Boys saying they're only famous because of their fangirl groupies wanting to have sex with them. This creates the correlation that it is the backstreet boy's looks that is earning them success moreso than their efforts and hence is sexualizing them. The men I know who do this aren't actually having the hots for the backstreet boys, they simply demean them by insinuating that their looks are what matters and not their talent. This is indeed demeaning them. But nothing about this is sexist. | ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
| ||
| ||
