"Let Me Tell Ya, Old Boy, I'd Let Her Curl My ..."
curl·ing (kûr'lĭng)
n. A game originating in Scotland in which two four-person teams slide heavy oblate stones toward the center of a circle at either end of a length of ice.
There's something unavoidably appealing about the Winter Olympics, perhaps because of the exotic nature of the sports (at least for those of us who live in the deep South and generally without snow).
Snowboarders who claim they don't care about winning medals and skiers talking about how difficult it is to ski when you're wasted. Weeping figure skaters, tire irons to the knees or not. Even the drudgery of speed skating.
Perhaps none is more curious than curling. Curious in the sense of how curiously entertaining it is to watch.
Let's face it, the brushing-the-ice-with-the-broom thing is what does it. Being a janitor could be considered training, and it might be the only sport that allows you to have a beer gut and still win an Olympic medal.
Curling has, indeed, swept the world -- and apparently caught the eyes of guys.
For there is a universal truth, as constant as the moon to the tides: If there are attractive women involved in a fad of the hour -- especially a marriage of women with sports -- guys will want to see them naked.
The more odd and elusive the idea, the better.
Mind you, not the ones who are too "softball" -- as one sports guy said on the radio this morning (in case you're wondering, that's code for women who are ... um ... a bit masculine).
Rather, the "hey-some-of-those-curling-chicks-are-hot" type.
And the "curling hotties" seem willing to feed the fetish.
Enter: The Curling Calendar.
The 2006 Ana Arce Team Sponsorship Calendar -- which features 12 female athletes representing curling teams from various countries -- was originally released in the fall in Canada.
But with the massive exposure of curling in the Olympics, the calendar is getting a new marketing push.
Women who compete with brooms and wear tight clothes? Only every four years? What a provocative combination!
What's that you say? Obscure? Perplexing?
That's exactly why guys are so enthralled.
Exploitive? Objectifying? Absolutely.
A woman sleeps with a presidential candidate during his campaign? Guys demand a full-frontal investigation.
Be a real bitch on a reality show? Take it off, sweetheart!
This is the way it is and the way it shall be. Like it or not. Take it or leave it.
Looks like these women are taking it.
They say Playboy is going to provide a big boost in marketing in its March issue, but they better make sure they get the word out before the heat of that torch dissipates into the cold snows of the Italian Alps a week from Sunday.
Today's curler is yesterday's Monica Lewinski.
24 comments:
curling is hot? I'm tuning in to see this....
Just look at the definition: A game originating in Scotland in which two four-person teams slide heavy oblate stones toward the center of a circle at either end of a length of ice.
A game - well, there you go.
Originating in Scotland - you know, those kilts. Randy guys there, can't even wait to drop the trousers.
Two four-person teams - how better to define an orgy?
Sliding heavy, oblate stones - plums, all the way, and the meat to go with it. The operative word here is sliding.
Toward the center of a circle - do you need me to explain that one?
At either end of a length of ice - ok, ummmm, it has length in that part. And ice - well, extremes, you know, get some going.
Totally, totally a pornfest of sluts, curling is. I'm surprised they let it on network television.
(I'm the one who trashed the previous entry, because I missed "sliding" and HAD to add that in)
in homer simposn voice: curling has swept the world...hehehehe
curling is mint...pure mint.
you would not believe how many drunken people were in the pub last night mimicking the actions of the sweepers of this sport, saying "it's mint" no doubt the same will happen tonight, then for another four years or until the commonwealth games, it'll all be forgotten.
personally, i believe curling has parallels with the dying pub-game of "shove ha'penny" which should surely be an olympic sport...not that the players would be bothered about medals...only whose round it is next.
ooo...the squiggly writing verification thing looks like a scottish swear word; what bizarre coincidence.
not only is this sexist but you obviously didn't watch curling b/c none of them had beer guts!
the women were in decent shape, but not necessarily the men.
true, it is sexist, but i'm just the messenger. this is satire, and perhaps, if you are a woman,anonymous person, you should direct your disgust toward the women who are exploiting themselves for the sake of money.
i personally have no desire to see them naked.
e+
well, one might sense a bit of sarcasm by calling me "anonymous person", but then again, surely anyone who has their own blog understands and supports other people making anonymous posts...
i do direct my disgust quite regularly and often to women who exploit themselves for the sake of money. and i'm sure you would, too, if you had a daughter.
at least you did agree it was sexist...and there in accoutability in how we represent ourselves, even on blogs, whether we like it or not! just calling yourself the messenger isn't going to cut it.
i support anybody who has something valuable to say.
but ... isn't going to cut what? i'm not apologizing for being the messenger of a view men hold that is sexist. and i always stand by what i communicate, because i always think it through.
it's simply a sexist trait many men have. i personally don't hold that interest, but find it interesting that so many men do.
i can't help that men seek to indulge that trait nor that women are obliged to indulge them.
i express my fascination with the psychological/sociological aspect through light-hearted satire, ie. i choose to laugh rather than be outraged.
i don't express myself through disgust. i choose to point it out and laugh about it. being offended is such a waste of time. it's self-centered and accomplishes nothing.
in any case, i appreciate your passion and i appreciate you reading. i really do enjoy when someone actually shares disagreement. it's far more interesting and fulfilling.
e+
i think if you can affect change through light-hearted satire, that's great. for me it has required a certain level of seriousness, rage if you will. while i often wish i could approach certain topics (such as sexism) in a satirical way, i wonder if, in that change of approach, i might be unable to accomplish some of my current goals...
i did enjoy your response-you make some good points about sexism.
i recently asked a friend if they believed that men were wrong for seeking out prostitutes or if those women were wrong for offering their services. the reply was the women were to blame and i, of course, argued differently...i'm of the opinion that it is a male-centered society and that it has been suggested to women (and continues to be) that they are here to be pleasing to men, whether it be looks, sex, cleaning the house, cooking, having children, etc. unless you can factor that out of the equation, it isn't reasonable to blame women.
what are your thoughts?
my thoughts?
i think we are all weak, as human beings, regardless of sex.
women historically have been subverted, no doubt, but for the most part this isn't something to be outraged about.
guys are weak. women are weak. it's what makes us human and what makes us farcical. there's no harm in this.
men are still, pretty much, the ones in power. the question is, what sort of power do women want to have? as i see it, power is corruptive. let's look at ourselves as human beings first.
we, men and women, are equally flawed.
e+
i guess it is easy for you to think the way you do if, as you said, men are the ones in power. a lot of rich people say money doesn't matter!
the power that women want is to decide for themselves if power is corruptive.
maybe it is easier. but i'm not sure it's valid to say that.
i'm white, but it doesn't mean i don't think racism against minorities is a problem.
i'm solidly middle class, but it doesn't mean i don't think poverty is a problem.
i think women have problems. domestic violence is a huge one. i just don't think in this case there's a big problem.
e+
i thought that a reasonably intelligent person such as yourself would be aware of the negative correlation between female empowerment and the incidence of domestic violence.
well, you thought right. i am aware of that.
it appears these females are empowering themselves to make money. they don't strike me as victims. they strike me as capitalists.
e+
i don't think we are talking about the same women here...
but nevertheless i'm done with this because i'm lowering my standards to continue this discussion.
i'm sure your readers who enjoy pictures of dogs voiding will continue to post. enjoy!
perhaps something is lost in the communication, but ... frankly, i don't know what you're talking about. you're too vague and general. i'm trying to stay on topic about these women.
and, yes, if you are hypersensitive and condescendingly superior to the point that it clouds your ability to make precise points ... my little world probably isn't the place for you.
i appreciate you disagreeing with me, though.
e+
You know, I wonder if the curling girls are into the money. They've been invited and encouraged to pose nude for public admiration. What a mind job. To be able to quantify male approval with sales figures from your calendar?
So whose fault is it that I see it this way? And I'm not asking because I know the answer.
I do see Anonymous' point, and KC's counterpoint. I think what Anonymous is trying to say, or maybe what KC has said the antithesis of, is that the athelete *should* be appreciated for their skill and not their hardware, as it were.
When a male athelete poses nude, or nearly nude, or in some way "demeaning" to his masculine stature like in a wedding dress, it's a bit of an inigma. The public's reaction can be anathematic, even, that a man would dare do that. Perhaps it's just a homophobic reaction: "I don't like him doing that because, well, I dig his abs and that scares me." But I think it's more of a visceral fear that men can be valued (or devalued) simply for their physique, or can willingly drop into the lower class of womanhood.
Yes, I do believe that many men out there do think of women as a lower class than men, here on Earth only to serve men. Certainly not all, and not even close to the majority, but enough to make life difficult or even unbearable for us at times.
But when a woman athelete, or any woman in the public eye, does it, it's often received with the argument, "Hey, she's making money, why be upset?"
That a man's public nudity is viewed as beneath him, but a woman's public nudity is perceived as using what she has, is what I think is at the crux of the problem: double standards. And this situation, I believe, does effect the majority of men and women. Men have a higher "calling", women should use their bodies because, well, they're nice to look at.
As a woman, that thought does creep me out. Not that anyone would pay to see ME naked, but that as a gender, our bodies can be thought of as more important than our abilities, and no matter what we do, someone out there is just going to us as, uhhhh, I can't even type the "c" word.
I'm not sure there is a solution, especially since the motivation of the curling women is all speculation. I don't think it is possible to get rid of pornography (however you define it), so I think a more accepting view of *all* people using their body as an asset would help, and not view Joe Namath in pantyhose as a sissy.
That said, I did make a tongue-in-cheek response to this calendar thing, I don't see it as offensive or demeaning, really. But then, I wouldn't be upset if the men curlers did the same. Hey, I really liked "The Full Monty," I appreciate people being comfortable with their bodies. Sex does sell. It's their bodies, it's their sport, it certainly did bring more attention to the sport.
about the male approval ... that very well could have more to do with it than the money. my question is, what would be wrong with that, per se? women like to be adored and admired for the bodies. exclusively? probably most don't. but i don't fault them for that.
i've heard women tell me that they think women's bodies are more appealing than men's. doesn't mean they aren't more attracted to men's bodies, just that women indeed were created with a more pleasant to the eye physicality. less edge and more curve. that's simply, genetically, evolutionarily more pleasing to the eye.
it's also true that men are more apt to want to see women naked vs. the other way around. i know, women will say that we underestimate women's desire to look at men and admire their features. but, generally you have to agree it's more of a focus for men.
that's the economics of it. there's more of a market for it.
the problem with talking about ricky williams posing in a wedding dress or joe namath in pantyhose is that they aren't trying to look attractive to either men or women. it's not like the curling women are trying to look like men, right?
the reason it's not as common isn't because of a societal view. it's because there isn't as much of a demand for it. i guarantee you that if there were a booming market to see men naked, there would be men to fill it. but there's not.
addressing the spirit of my post ... if someone can tell me that women come anywhere near the mentality that men have of immediately imagining an athlete naked, maybe i'll see it differently. individually, i'm sure it's true that there are a good number of women who are that way.
but it's just not the norm the way it is with guys, speaking in systemic terms.
you have to think of this, too ... where is male athletes' bread buttered? with women? surely not. just look at the numbers of women who watch ESPN. there's no substantial market there.
then look at the olympics and curling. women tune in for the olympics, but still not enough to tip the scale. enough men, though, watch it. curling is like women's tennis. men's viewership of women's tennis eclipses that of men's tennis. why? they say it's because the ball is slower and it's an easier game to watch. bull.
men are more focused on women in sports who are attractive. women's sports aren't as well-viewed because men watch more sports. if you offer more women's sports, they fail because of lack of viewership (just look at the wnba).
men like to look at women and don't respect their accomplishments as much, because, frankly, women competing in the same sports as men (which is almost every sport) doesn't cut it because they're not as good at it (just look at the wnba).
the simple, hard truth is that, while women compete and perform, men aren't as interested in that.
what is wrong with that? if women don't like that, then don't indulge men. if they want the same appreciation men receive in athletic accomplishments, then just go out and play, but it won't be as popular because it's not as interesting to watch (they can't dunk, they can't hit a ball as far, they can't run as fast).
what i suggest is, just play. if you don't get the exposure you'd want ... well, that isn't what sports is all about. it's about challenging yourself (a big reason lindsey jacobellis is one of my heroes from the olympics, not because i want to see her naked).
be honest ... women generally don't care as much for the accomplishment men achieve. because they really just don't care as much, period, at all about the sport.
which brings me back to my point ... what power is it that we all want? if women want power in sports, they need to make their sports more interesting or, which is perhaps more realistic, get more women interested in their sports.
if they have to do it through using their bodies, then they aren't empowering themselves.
give me a guy trying to make it on a knitting show on lifetime television. then tell me if women don't look at him and say, "wow, he's a hottie." you probably wouldn't mind seeing him pose suggestively. and he might oblige you, because he knows where his bread is buttered.
if someone told me i could make several several thousand dollars wrapping a towel around my waist and showing off my abs (like olympic swimmer michael phelps did), hell, i'm all over that.
e+
Ok, first, I'm playing devil's advocate for the most part. Personally, I'm fine with porn, as long as violence or subjugation isn't being promoted. I don't even know if I would consider the calendar being porn, as I haven't seen any more than what you've posted. But I do know that there is a population of women who don't like it, and I can see much of their point. It's hard being a feminist, you know. Our bodies, our lives, unless it's someone elses' bodies that kinda defeats other issues we have.
Anyways, I think the athelete-as-sexual-object (ASO)discussion, which is yours, and the woman-as-sexual-object (WSO) discussion, which I believe to be Anonymous', are really two different realities. ASO certainly has at its root an economic function. I agree men, in general, watch sports more than women, in general. I agree that most men get off on visual sexual stimulation than most women. I'll even agree that yes, an appealing-looking woman is kinda attractive to me, even if I have no lustful urges towards her. Or, maybe, I just look at her and wish I had those thighs. Perhaps that's what 'armchair quarterbacks' like about football - wishing they had those thighs?
And, some study I read about somewhere concluded that men get a rush when they see other people get hurt. I can't remember the scenario completely, I guess they showed a bunch of groin shots or something to a sampling of people, and it was the guys who got a good release of dopamine while the women just cringed... something like that. So, I can see why men's football is more appealing than, say, women's floor hockey with pretty women bouncing around, but women's roller derby has it's rabid fans (or, at least, did for awhile).
Wow, I'm babbling.
As I was trying to say - ASO is more about attracting consumers to a brand - either a sport, an athelete, or commercial spots on television. Just like Eric is saying.
WSO, on the other hand, is all about power. Either the power of a woman to hold the attention of men, or (more realistically), the power of men to ignore everything about a woman except for her sexual appeal or potential. And that is freaking scary. Women who use their bodies for the visual gratification of men have the right to do it (our bodies, our lives), but it makes the rest of us women out there a little more fearful for ourselves.
Case in point: barbershops. Those icky, sticky, smelly ones with the combs in blue liquid, and a magazine rack full of, ahem, racks. Back when I was young and in the blushing days of early romance with my husband, where every minute of every day had we had to be together, I followed him into a barbershop. Once. It was the only one in town (small college town), he had no other choice (me being hopeless with scissors, and he needing a cut for his upcoming ANG drill weekend). The room had several men waiting around for cuts, all looking at "Penthouse" or "Jugs" or whatever other really crude girlie magazines are out there. It was most uncomfortable because, well, I was with a bunch of men "reading" girlie magazines. I was not some girl spending time with her boyfriend, I was an Object. It was really really icky. And scarey. We didn't stay around for the cut.
Fine, don't go into barbershops. But where does it stop? Don't go anywhere within a 300-m radius of a barbershop? Don't walk on the street alone at night? Don't walk on the street alone in broad daylight? Don't sit at home alone, with the blinds drawn and the lights off? When do we stop "asking for it" and become the victim?
Yah, I'm getting a bit extreme. And yeah, most men don't see women like that. But that doesn't really matter that most men don't. It's the men who do that are the creepy ones.
Once anyone is seen as an Object instead of a Human, you don't have to think about the ethical consequences. Prisoners known as numbers are easier to regiment. Nazi concentration camp victims branded with their numerical name, easier to treat as cattle or worse. Victims in the Japanese WWII human experiment facility Unit 731 were known as "logs." Much easier to do what they did to them if they weren't really human.
I'm not saying that men are going to rise up and intern all women to become sexual objects, I'm just saying it's not pleasant to be an Object.
Which, to get back to the topic, is what many women have against any woman posing nude in a provocative manner. It may be her body, but it's our future.
That all said, my argument is that until we *all* start treating *everyone* with dignity and respect and can disassociate internal desires with actions, there will always be this schism about photos of naked women. Which means, of course, that there will always be this schism about photos of naked women.
you're right about armchair quarterbacks. they want to be those men. just as women like to say "well, the only thing i like about it is how their butts look in those little pants."
the point about fear of objectification is a very good one. in general, men don't have to worry about violence from women. and as a man it is difficult for me to understand that feeling, other than to be the only white guy in the projects.
what you say about porn ... i hate porn. i don't judge people for it, but i hate it. i don't watch it because it's gross.
here's the thing about your barbershop scenario ... an establishment that has nude magazines in it hurts the reputation of guys.
guys who don't objectify women, but do enjoy admiring them in all their femaleness. it makes it where many guys can't point out beauty without feeling lumped in with guys who read porn before getting their mullets trimmed.
which brings me back to my point ... power is abused and we all want power over ourselves.
the guys i'm lampooning in my post are the guys who generally just get a kick out admiring women's bodies. it's not like hard porn. you could argue that seeing michael phelps' abs is similar. you don't see his penis. you see the equivalent of what these women are showing, mostly their breasts.
men aren't evil because they like to see women naked. let's be honest ... the knitter with the ripped pecs would be quite exotic, no?
e+
Eric, I think we are in agreement with each other. Again, I don't really have a problem with the calendar, and I do think that the human body is quite beautiful. Babies' butts? Incredible. Can't keep my eyes off of 'em. Nothing wrong with that, or liking to see the female or male form. I think it's rather inherent in all of us, and because of its visceral appeal to most of us, is what makes it "evil" to those who like to define our morality.
Also, I think porn can be defined in many different ways - even Michealangelo's David could be considered porn in some circles (not mine). It was just an easy word to use to lump all things naked in.
well, kz, if we can just make it so our anonymous friend could stand dogs taking a dump on rivals' symbols, we might be able to continue the discussion.
and just everyone knows ... lindsey jacobellis is my hero; i respect her accomplishments and staying true to herself ... and, no, i don't want to see her naked.
e+
Dog poop: Against it. At least, in my back yard.
On the dogcatcher's shoe? Definately for.
Post a Comment