Forum menu
+1 fin25!
But what if those girls (or men) WANT to be OBJECTIFIED. Should they not be allowed ? Or should their wishes be ignored for the greater good of society?
Attractive people are used to sell products and promote events.
They get paid well and are not forced into it.
If you take modelling as an example, it is one of the few careers where women outearn men by a huge amount. It is something like five to one.
Why does this happen? Because womens fashion is a much bigger business than men's and society places a greater value on female looks than male.
Sporting events are attended mostly by men and so therefore having attractive women promoting the event is going to appeal to the majority of the audience.
Also many men are uncomfortable with the idea of getting too close to other men, whereas women don't have this problem.
Can you imagine men giving out prizes and kissing other men anywhere outside of italy and ancient rome? Not likely.
That is the world we live in.
Fin25 and Molgrips have made the points wonderfully, they don't have any place in cycling or other sports. Speedways a good example of the offputting impact of it, plenty of the old men at Poole Pirates provide a running commentary on what they would 'do' with the ladies on display, the signal being sent is that women are for leering at which creates a grim environment for all women.
but what you're actually arguing for is that some basic taste of your own is more important than other kinds of person feeling welcome at an event.
No such argument came from me. As I said, I couldn't care less if they're on the podium or not.
The fact of the matter is that sex sells. It's that simple. I'm not some neanderthal knuckle dragging sexist whoever making up a claim to see boobies. It's proven time and time again that beauty sells. Marketing companies use this on a daily basis. A company will only sponsor an even to raise their public awareness and sell stuff. If it uses models as part of that ploy so be it.
I'm not condoning it, just stating the obvious.
Of course sex sells. But why is that an argument for it being OK?
@kudos - I don't know many women who enjoy getting letched at even when they are getting paid for it
plenty of the old men at Poole Pirates provide a running commentary on what they would 'do' with the ladies on display, the signal being sent is that women are for leering at which creates a grim environment for all women.
The old "girls have problems, boys are problems" argument?
What about womens right to wear whatever the hell they want (and that includes the right to be paid to wear something). Or should women cover up lest they distract men?
I think this quote sums it up:
"if my shoulder or stomach bothers you, YOU are sexualizing me & YOU are the problem"
http://globalnews.ca/news/2018351/toronto-students-wear-crop-tops-to-school-in-dress-code-protest/
But why is that an argument for it being OK?
I'm not saying it's ok. It's just the way it is.
The same as models are used to sell on TV, magazines, cinema. 99 percent of the time the use of sex to sell products is totally irrelevant to the actual product. They still use it as it's a sure way to get people's attention.
I'm not saying we should ban it, or that the models involved dont love it or benefit from it. I'm saying that it is sexist, because it objectifies women. I think any argument to the contrary is missing the point.
Things change gradually. Look at what was acceptable in the 70's and 80's on TV. I hope we are heading towards a world where this sort of thing is rejected.
Why keep defending structural sexism by saying people get paid or that sex sells. It's not an argument, it's a frankly lazy statement. Podium girls are symptoms of a larger problem. Challenging and rejecting this kind of thing is a way to address the larger problem. Blindly accepting the status quo merely perpetuates it.
It's one of many expressions of sexism holding back women in sport, and general society.
I hope we are heading towards a world where this sort of thing is rejected.
It would be nice but I somehow doubt it will go away.
Everyone would have to reject all photos of semi naked poplin the newspapers and magazines and you know that will never happen.
It always amazes me when talking of a beautiful female model/actor/sports person on here that someone inevitably comments on bashing back doors or whatever other crude comment. This is the mentality we definitely need to leave in the past.
why are the girls offensive? I'm not sure how men are offended by a model doing a job? For women maybe but for a bloke??
If its that offensive I reckon it might be better to turn it off and make a stand!
It's not offensive, just inappropriate.
It's not the people modelling who are offensive, it's that it is seemingly acceptable to put them in the position to be objectified, that is wrong.
Your idea of sexism is different to mine. Paying women less, different rights for women, different retirement age, appreciating someone less as they're female - that's sexism.
Complaining when a model does her job?
Who do you believe it to be demeaning? The models know what's involved before they take the job. You might take offence but if you do, maybe it's you who has the issues.
This sums it up for me.
Top level sport has traditionally been a male environment, even in this day and age women's football (for example) doesn't get the crowds like male football does despite a potential 50% of the population being able to participate etc...ditto Motorsport, although there is no barrier rules-wise to women riders or drivers historically the ones that have come through haven't been that good....exceptions like Michelle Mouton and Danica Patrick exist but look at the crowd at a MotoGP and even the spectating tends to be male dominated.
You could argue that women aren't backed financially in the lower levels and that's why they don't come through but someone like Jenny Tinmouth in British Superbikes is an example of a crap rider keeping her place on the grid because she is female, a male rider with results as dire as hers would've been kicked out years ago....this sexism thing works both ways.
As somebody else said, in modelling (conventional, catwalk and porn) women are paid significantly more than their male counterparts...in Motorsport positive discrimination exists in order to get a woman on the starting grid....and STW is getting hot and bothered about podium girls?!...,give me strength.
I'm a man and I like the female form, am I supposed to feel shame at that in this day and age?!...because frankly expecting people to deny or suppress their natural feelings towards attractive members of the opposite sex seems bizarre....am I supposed to castigate myself for daring to look at a women and think she's pretty?!
What about women who flirt and use their looks to their advantage?...surely this needs stamping out too....what about women who only value each other in looks alone (we've all met them unfortunately) and see their appearance as a free pass in life?....what about the ones who put their looks on the same kind of level as intellect and because they are 'good looking' expect to marry a successful man and get taken care of?....to be fair the bloke in this situation is a mug and deserves all he gets but that's for a different thread!
We live in an unequal society in many ways because we're different...I know that saying that is akin to admitting to be a paedo but men and women are different physically, hormonally, emotionally etc....there are numerous studies to bare this out and yet some very grey individuals expect everybody the world over to be the same.
Thank Christ that isn't the case.
(The MotoGP grid girls are awesome btw)
iolo - MemberI'm not saying it's ok. It's just the way it is.
There's a lot of stuff that's not OK, but is just the way it is. And lots of stuff that used to be not OK, but just the way it is, which we've stopped doing because it wasn't OK.
<applause> for fin25
[quote=marcus ]But what if those girls (or men) WANT to be OBJECTIFIED. Should they not be allowed ? Or should their wishes be ignored for the greater good of society?
Really?!!! So it's only the women actually being paid who society objectifies by having stuff like this?
The MotoGP grid girls are awesome btw
No it's an outrage that the organizers discriminate against fat blokes. They don't employ a single fat bloke to hold the brollies. This guy is outraged.
[img] 
[/img]
I refer you to my previous argument. Come on, nobody is trying to get you to suppress your desires, that's just on over reaction that glosses over the matter. Nobody is trying to make everyone the same either, just fairer. Of course sexism works both ways, but that doesn't justify perpetuating it in its current form that is still hugely biased in favour of males. Inequality might be 'just the way it is', but you might think differently if you were on the receiving end of that inequality.
but you might think differently if you were on the receiving end of that inequality.
In this case who is receiving inequality? The girls know beforehand what the job is and can accept or refuse to do it. They are not being exploited. Please explain.
[quote=deviant ]...because frankly expecting people to deny or suppress their natural feelings towards attractive members of the opposite sex seems bizarre....am I supposed to castigate myself for daring to look at a women and think she's pretty?!
What about women who flirt and use their looks to their advantage?...surely this needs stamping out too....what about women who only value each other in looks alone (we've all met them unfortunately) and see their appearance as a free pass in life?
Nobody is expecting anybody to suppress their natural urges, or stuff like flirting <selecting a pic from my archive for you...>. It's interesting though how you see women who value themselves and other women only by looks as unfortunate - that attitude is exactly the sort of thing which is encouraged by commercialised valuing of women only for their looks. Because there is a huge difference between natural urges and commercialised objectification. The former is a glance and a smile at somebody you find attractive - the latter is the equivalent to staring at her tits, presumably you find it impossible to prevent yourself doing that due to your natural urges?
[quote=iolo ]In this case who is receiving inequality? The girls know beforehand what the job is and can accept or refuse to do it. They are not being exploited. Please explain.
Do you really not get it? I covered this a few posts above yours - the effects of this sort of stuff aren't isolated to the women being paid.
You really can't stand by that argument. Choice of being paid isn't the issue. It's not about how a model feels about doing a particular job, it's about the larger structural sexism that puts someone in a position to be objectified at a random sporting event. You're focussing on a symptom and not the larger problem.
I was just covering the inequality comment in the post above mine.
How about advertising.
How do you feel about this?
As I've said before, sexism of course goes both ways but two wrongs obviously don't make a right. One sexism doesn't justify a continued structure of sexism. You can't defend sexism by using sexism as an example! Your example is a trifle compared to the institution of sexism against women...buy neither is right
At no stage have I defended sexism.
I asked how you felt about that add? Nothing else.
You see sexist company exploiting a woman to sell their goods.
I see two actors performing a funny sketch and its the humour that I enjoyed, nothing else.
So where in everyday life do you not see sexism? The tv when you switch it on, on the back of the bus as you drive to work, in the newspapers you read, maybe Michelle from accounts has a short skirt on so she's being exploited as all the men are getting overly excited?
Your definition of sexism strikes me as very one sided and it seems you have a Nanny State mentally.
We all have the right to our opinion I suppose.
the latter is the equivalent to staring at her tits, presumably you find it impossible to prevent yourself doing that due to your natural urges?
Manners and my desire to be seen as a polite gentleman prevent me from doing the above....that said, on a recent skiing holiday a simply stunning young woman got on the gondola with our group (all men)...due to good manners and not wanting her to feel uncomfortable we chatted among ourselves, looked out the windows etc....everything but stare at how beautiful she was.
At the top when we disembarked the conversation turned to how gorgeous she was and how difficult it was not to stare....'amateurs' remarked one of our party who had simply put on his (mirrored) goggles and stared away happily for the duration of the ride to the top.
Life lesson learned.
The line is simple.
This sort of thing is an expression of a sexist society.
If you benefit from this sexism, it is up to you whether to challenge it or ignore it.
Whatever your choice, models in bikinis at sporting events is still sexist.
Top level sport has traditionally been a male environment
And that's okay, is it?
That's just the 'we've always done this' argument and it's just about the most worthless argument you can make.
Sure, look at your choice of sexy person, whatever - but adding totty to something just to get some people interested who don't give enough of a shit to care about the sport itself is appealing to base instincts and is fundamentally wrong IMO because it has very corrosive side effects.
If you can't see those corrosive side effects then you aren't looking hard enough.
I asked how you felt about that add?
The ad isn't just a joke, it's satire. That's a pretty different thing.
Re the cycling - lots of peple are offended by it, lots aren't. Removing the girls would have no affect on the cycling - fans will still come to watch the sport and any letchers can go do something else if all the want is totty.
Therefore - they should go. Along with beauty contests.
I'm hardly advocating a nanny state of anti-sexism, just pointing out the essentials of the issue. I think you have defended sexism by not acknowledging the wider issue of sexism, which is sadly one-sided. Anyway, we disagree...
right,
i've asked my wife, she responded thusly:
"Do they have a place? - no."
"in what possible context could they be justified? i'm astounded that no-one gets it. The obvious (if unspoken) message is that the men have 'won' the women, I hope i don't have to try and explain how wrong [u]that[/u] is"
Anyway, we disagree...
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. And it wouldn't be STW if everyone had the same ideas 😆
Re the cycling - lots of peple are offended by it, lots aren't. Removing the girls would have no affect on the cycling - fans will still come to watch the sport and any letchers can go do something else if all the want is totty.
The fans are unimportant, there are no turnstiles, it is the sponsors who matter and, if they disappear, then financial support for the sport will disappear.
The fans are who they sell to. Cycling, bikes, associated kit and racing fans aren't some kind of illusion hung off a pair of double-D knockers. Sponsors and sales aren't going to disappear without models in bikinis.
Sex sells in a particular way to a specific market, and bigger, more diverse markets are possible. The message in sexist displays is that cycling is for heterosexual men. I've been through one industry slowly realising that it's stupid to only sell to one demographic. Seeing fans/participants of another claim that structure as somehow vital to that industry functioning is a proper facepalm moment.
as for saying its sexist i didnty see anyone standing there holding there arms up there backs making them get there kit off for the lads or the lesbos
I don't think you understand what sexism is.
I see this thread has now become an excuse for those who's tastes are so basic that this sort of marketing works on them to post the sort of pictures which put off lots of people from visiting this forum. 🙄
edit: and there go the mods removing the context for my post, damn you 😉
The fans are unimportant, there are no turnstiles, it is the sponsors who matter
Er yeah, so why do the sponsors want to sponsor? Because there are fans...
It is not just the fans you turn up, though, and the range of sponsors goes way beyond cycling companies especially in continental Europe. As I see it, if you start dictating terms to sponsors, you will make an already declining pool much smaller. Cycling may be booming here but it does not make up for the loss of long established teams and races in Europe and that is just the men's sport. The female side is really struggling to have any commercial viability at all.
EDIT: The entertaining side is incredibly important too, I used to work for a company that was one of the biggest sponsors of cycling and we took huge number of clients to races - very few of whom had much of an interest in cycling, but the overall event as a whole was attractive.
So you're saying cycling needs totty?
FFS
[quote=mefty ]As I see it, if you start dictating terms to sponsors, you will make an already declining pool much smaller.
Well if it's the sponsors demanding podium girls, then that is a different matter and should be better publicised. It would certainly be interesting to see the social media reaction if a big sponsor declares support for them...
The female side is really struggling to have any commercial viability at all.
You reckon the commercial viability is improved by having bikini clad lovelies parading around? Maybe they should impose a dress code for the female riders to improve the commercial viability?
should be better publicised
Their uniforms are generally in the sponsor's colours and feature their logo, what more do you want them to do to publicise it?
You reckon the commercial viability is improved by having bikini clad lovelies parading around?
Well if that is what the only available sponsor wants, then yes as the event has no viability without a sponsor. However, I doubt it is quite this black and white. However, there is no doubt women's cycling really struggles to find sponsors.
So you're saying cycling needs totty?
No I am saying cycling needs money.
[quote=mefty ]Their uniforms are generally in the sponsor's colours and feature their logo, what more do you want them to do to publicise it?
Really? What are the colours of Le Crédit Lyonnais?
Though that's missing the point anyway - using podium girls to promote the sponsors is not the same thing at all as sponsors demanding podium girls for promotional purposes.