Pretty Faces only - NSFW

[2ski2moro]

For the sake of women skiers everywhere, I hope Lynsey Dyer's upcoming film, Pretty Faces, is more about skiing than pouty lips and "derrières" in skin-tight ski pants pointed toward the camera. I hope it deals with abilities rather than sex-appeal. I'm no feminist, but that kind of film demeans the women and diminishes their roll in the sport.

Last year, I mentioned that I had a real problem with Lynsey Dyer's She Jumps for the same reason. Instead of the stated goal of attracting girls to the sport, I thought that it didn't promote the sport as much as it did the women in the film. People responded, oh they are just having fun. The outfits are costumes. Blah, blah, blah.

Photos of Lynsey Dyer, posing in the nude, covering her breasts with her hands. Sorry, I just can't take you seriously. BTW, I see you, Julia Mancuso and Lindsay Vonn, and you disappoint me. Seductive poses in tiny bikinis or less. One particularly troubling one is Mancuso on a bed, pouty face, raised up on her elbows, and wearing ski boots.

Why can't women skiers stand on their skills alone? Why do they have to sexualize the sport? You don't see Bode Miller and Ted Ligity and Shawn White and the rest of the men in provocative poses.

So I will end my rant with a question.

Can women's sports thrive without sexualization of the participants?

 

[bounceswoosh]

Based on the trailer, it's pretty clear there is at least *some* amazing skiing in this movie.

Also I think there's a double-edged sword here. Yes, requiring sexualization of these athletes for sponsorship sucks. On the other hand, I want them to be *able* to express something of their personalities without being slut-shamed. If I had a professional athlete's body, you can bet there would be plenty of photos of me without much in the way of clothing. I wish I felt confident enough to have them right now.

 

[Pequenita]

Can women's sports thrive without sexualization of the participants?

My assumption is that the ones who are doing it are doing so because they want to. I mean, there's Mia Hamm, whom I'm pretty sure hasn't been a centerfold model, and then there's Brandi Chastain.

 

[abc]

We've been through this before!

If I had a professional athlete's body, you can bet there would be plenty of photos of me without much in the way of clothing. I wish I felt confident enough to have them right now.

Bravo!

I don't have a great body, not in the old fashion sex object standard. But I do smirkly smile (mostly inside my head) when a ski group decide to meet up at the pool...

 

[2ski2moro]

If I had an athlete's body, I would be proud to wear a bikini, too. However, I would never pose for photos in a provocative manner. I think that's the difference in my mind. If celebrities want to dress or act in that manner, that is certainly their prerogative, but it is my choice whether or not to emulate them or buy the products they sponsor.

I don't want to be accused of slut shaming. (This is not meant to sound insulting, I just don't know how to write this differently.) We all come from different backgrounds and religions and generational norms. I think that this all plays a role in forming one's morals and belief systems.

However, that's not what I meant to ask. I was using them as examples.

My real question is, can women's sports survive and prosper without sexualizing the women? Will people watch women's sports without it?

Remember the movie, "A League of Their Own?" It was the story of The All-American Girls' Professional Baseball League in the 40's. The women ball players were forced to wear skirts and have perfect makeup and hair in order to attract men to the ball fields.

Have we not come any farther than that? That they don't take females' athleticism seriously? That in order to attract spectators, it has to be provocative?

 

[abc]

My real question is, can women's sports survive and prosper without sexualizing the women? Will people watch women's sports without it?

What makes you think the two are related? It could very well be women's aports prosper perfectly fine with or without the sexualization. It just so happens that there's some of the latter going on by a few athlets.

It's like saying "Can professional sport prosper without alcohol and drug abuse?", just because SOME male professional abuse alcohol/drug.

Just because two things happening in the same space doesn't mean they're related. Many other female athlets don't pose provacative images. There's no clear indication they have any less draw for audience.

 

[2ski2moro]

ABC, sorry, but your analogy about drugs and alcohol abuse fails on so many levels.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Does it?

2ski2moro, please consider that different people can legitimately have different opinions about the same subject.

 

[2ski2moro]

Does it?

2ski2moro, please consider that different people can legitimately have different opinions about the same subject.

True. No question. And please consider that my opinion is also legitimate.

So now we agree that we have multiple opinions, all valid and all worth discussion. Discussion is just that - discussion. Not arguing. Not hating. Let's keep it positive and not attack each other. Got it.

Back to what I said here.

ABC, sorry, but your analogy about drugs and alcohol abuse fails on so many levels.

If we insert ABC's analogy into my question, she asks us to make the assumption that somehow an athlete using drugs or alcohol will attract a large audience to the game.

Here's why it fails.
1. Drugs are illegal, posing provocatively is not.
2. Alcohol is legal, unless driving while drunk. How does that attract people to the sport in which the abuser participates?
3. Agents invite athletes to sign contracts for publicity photo sessions that include provocative poses. How are agents involved in scoring drugs for athletes for publicity? Steroids? They, too, are illegal and posing provocatively is not.

And so on...

 

[2ski2moro]

So back to my question. Who is the target audience for these provocative photos? Are the women being used to target a particular demographic? Is it necessary to the success of the sport?

Here are some examples I found. "Hotties of the Olympics"? Is this really necessary to promote the sport?

 

[abc]

You're making the assumption the two (success in sport, posing provacative photo) are inseperable. That's why you don't see the point of my analogy.

I see no evidence they're even remotely related.

Alcohol abuse and sporting success for men aren't related either. Some men abuse alcohol, some athlets abuse alcohol, some top athlets abuse alcohol. But alcohol abuse is not the cause of sporting success. They win on the field and they're idolized by the public, drinking excessively or not.

Some women pose provocative photo for money. Some athlets pose provocative photo for money. Some top athlets pose for provocative photo for money. But posing provocatively for money is not the cause of their popular appeal. They are good at their game and that's why they're recognized by the public. Not because they pose nude photo. Nor does posing for those photo increase their fan base.

Their sporting success and their personal choice of life style are not related. One doesn't cause the other. They're just random things individuals do.

Some women sporting figure sleep with their coach or their agent. Some women college students marry their professor. Will you automatically jump to the conclusion sleeping with their coach and marrying their professor are "neccessary" for their professional success?

You seem to have made up your mind about women athlets posing provocative photo as neccessary for their popularity. So you see ANY top sporting woman doing that as evidence supporting your theory. You close you eye to the majority of other women athlets NOT posing for such photo at all that are also loved by the public.

 

[altagirl]

True. No question. And please consider that my opinion is also legitimate.

So now we agree that we have multiple opinions, all valid and all worth discussion. Discussion is just that - discussion. Not arguing. Not hating. Let's keep it positive and not attack each other. Got it.

Back to what I said here.



If we insert ABC's analogy into my question, she asks us to make the assumption that somehow an athlete using drugs or alcohol will attract a large audience to the game.

Here's why it fails.
1. Drugs are illegal, posing provocatively is not.
2. Alcohol is legal, unless driving while drunk. How does that attract people to the sport in which the abuser participates?
3. Agents invite athletes to sign contracts for publicity photo sessions that include provocative poses. How are agents involved in scoring drugs for athletes for publicity? Steroids? They, too, are illegal and posing provocatively is not.

And so on...

Huh. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there are agents procuring/arranging doctors who handle illegal performance enhancing drugs for their athletes. Especially when they are recovering from injuries or other things where the perception is that they perform or their career is toast and feel like they are out of legal options.

And there are male athletes who are well known as partiers, like posing shirtless, etc. I would suspect there is a pitch-man market for the clean cut, well behaved, good role model athlete - that probably pays the best, but there is also a market for the hot party boy athlete. Like Rob Gronkowski, who's been injured as often as not, and is in the news for his partying and shirtless pics more than his plays on the field in the last several years. Part of the money making game is name recognition, and regardless of gender, it's not always actual sport performance that brings that name recognition (sadly).

I actually have female coworkers who have told me they are now totally into watching football because of reality tv shows and party pics and all that nonsense. They barely know a thing about the sport, but follow certain male players because they are "hot". So, yeah - drinking and partying and having that reputation apparently DOES make athletes more money, in some cases. I'm sure it ruins as many careers as it makes, but "success" is often measured in $$ more than wins.

abc - I'd disagree that the sexy photos don't increase the fan base. I'm pretty sure that they do. Probably not with SERIOUS fans who are really into the sport, but more like my coworker above. They may not know anything about the sport, but they're adding to TV ratings, etc. hoping for a glimpse of someone they think is hot.

But I don't think this is a totally female specific problem. And if women want to pose in lingerie - I know a lot of sports that do lingerie calendars as fund raisers, and they're quite successful. I'm sure they could figure out other options, but if the women posing for the photos want to do it, that's their decision (with the selfie craze, there is certainly no shortage of PEOPLE, not just women, who love showing off their bodies!) Anyway - I don't think it's a requirement for sports success, but I do believe that the additional money to be made if you've got a sexy image to flaunt is too tempting for most to pass up, especially if they're not shy about it in the first place.

 

[bounceswoosh]

You guys have seen the all-nude, objects in strategic places, college men's rowing team's pictures to combat homophobia, right? Yum.

 

[ski diva]

I fall somewhat in the middle here. Yes, I agree that people like to look at these photos and they make the athlete more marketable, especially to people who have little or no interest in the sport. And yes, I agree that it's the athlete's right to do this, if they're so inclined. No argument here.

I'm profoundly saddened, however, with the idea that these women do this -- or at least feel compelled to do this -- to get attention or make money. These are world class athletes who should be celebrated simply for their abilities -- not because they're posing with their tush hanging out of a thong and a "come hither" look in their eyes. When Julia Mancuso markets Lange boots posed provocatively in her underwear, yes, I have a problem with that. I think it diminishes her athleticism and demeans her accomplishments. What's more, it does nothing to sell them to women and only sexualizes her to men. I'd buy the boots a lot quicker if I thought buying them could make me ski like her. (Oh, if only.) So how about showing her wearing them as she rips down a mountain?



Obviously, we're all entitled to our opinions. There seem to be a lot of them here and a lot of people disagree with me. If I had a body like that, no, I wouldn't pose all sexed up. But that's just me.

 

[abc]

You guys have seen the all-nude, objects in strategic places, college men's rowing team's pictures to combat homophobia, right? Yum.

N, I've not seen that.

Is it available somewhere on the 'net? If so, can I have a link? Would love to see it!

 

[Kimmyt]

Is this necessary to promote men's downhill skiing?

How about this slideshow of 'sexy winter athletes' (although why they think having a bunch of dudes pose with their shirts on and throwing fake snow in the air is sexy, I don't know...)

As I see it, athletes are Celebrities. And further, they are celebrities that happen to have pretty brilliant physical attributes due to the fact that they are athletes. So people are going to want to make them into sex symbols. I do see that this happens more with women than with men, sure. Some of it boils down to the fact that men tend to be more visually stimulated and women less so (it's the same reason why men are more into sex-driven porn while women may tend to find plot-driven porn or literary porn more of a turnon). Some of it may be patriarchy, etc.

The difference I see now vs., say your example of A League of Their Own, is that woman now can CHOOSE whether they want themselves to be viewed this way. They can choose to be 'just' an athlete or they can choose to be a sex symbol. And they can be both.

 

[pinto]

....
Obviously, we're all entitled to our opinions. There seem to be a lot of them here and a lot of people disagree with me. If I had a body like that, no, I wouldn't pose all sexed up. But that's just me.

I suspect that one's opinion on this sorta plays out this way. ie, If I looked good enough, I would (a) definitely pose like that, or (b) definitely not pose like that.

 

[pinto]

(somehow lost the rest of my reply)

And then (a) it doesn't bother me that others do, (b) it does bother me etc etc.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Is this necessary to promote men's downhill skiing?

I don't think this picture is necessary to promote men's downhill skiing. But I did just find it necessary to switch from my phone to my large computer screen to better appreciate the ... snow? Right, the snow.

(Although it is interesting, actually - the focus on this picture is his upper body, which is very nice, not his lower body - which of course is what he actually uses for his sport. And he's even in baggy pants instead of something skintight.)

 

[bounceswoosh]

N, I've not seen that.

Is it available somewhere on the 'net? If so, can I have a link? Would love to see it!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/british-rowing-team-strips-down-to-fight-homophobia

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbellassai/the-naked-british-rowing-team-strips-down-again-for-a-whole

https://www.warwickrowers.org/