In the US, our approach to sexuality is definitely pretty fucked up, but it’s not simply frowned upon.
The perspective our society has is just disjoint, and insane. Actual normal sexuality is ostacized and held in lower regard than overt violence. But at the same time, the suggestion of sexuality (as Trigger described, a weird, corporatized version of it) permeates all aspects of our society. The topic of sexuality exists continuously, just below the surface, but is never allowed to really surface.
So the effect is that it creates a weird situation where people are constantly thinking about sex, but have their ability to act on it suppressed, which leads to all kinds of fucked up psychological issues.
Well, I make time to watch the USWNT soccer matches. Partly because it’s great to see a US team that competes at the highest levels, wins world cups and gold medals and generally plays an exciting game. And partly because watching superfit women play any sport is enjoyable.
I am surprised more colleges don’t try that. Of course you would then have to offer scholarships to them. I don’t know what Title IX does in regards to high school athletics.
It seems sexuality is fine… as long as it’s for men. As soon as there is another reason for it, suddenly it’s not okay. That’s why you can have women dressed in cheer-leading outfits and clearly be sexualized in calendars and events but a Lane Bryant commercial somehow damages the “wholesome” image of the NFL. The later group is not exactly the image of what we say men should be attracted to.
Sad fact, I tend to avoid English people on holiday, when I’m walking around town, unless they clearly need help (have had to translate for several grannies…)
Well we don’t have to go down a rabbit whole, but the only difference between say a Victoria Secret ad and a Lane Bryant ad is the size of the models. One fits the expectation that these cheerleaders are being held to, weight and body image, and the other is plus-size. For some reason, one version of sexy was okay with the networks more than the other.
I don’t think the USA actually frowns on sexuality; we just have one group, with power, hanging onto their puritan roots, in public in private they do whatever the hell they want. That group gets very loud when they think anything sexual is geared for anyone but them, especially if it’s sexuality for and about women instead of about women for them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the sicko’s involved in this cheerleader, whatever the heck it is, are the loudest for family values, against too much sex in music videos, movies and games while they pretty much try to whore women in secret.
Also volleyball. In the US it’s only USWNT beyond college, but many American players go to Europe and play women’s pro volleyball in leagues over there. Of course, you’re not going to make a fortune doing it, but the women I’ve talked to who did have travelled pretty extensively, have great stories and experiences, and generally enjoyed themselves.
I would assume that most people watching women’s soccer are primarily watching it for the athletic competition aspect. The fact that some of the women are gorgeous is just a bonus. That same individual wouldn’t look at the lingerie football league as a substitute for that.
Basically, I think making a decision to see X (e.g., an NBA game, a women’s soccer game, a lingerie football game) is a balance of factors such as quality of the athletic competition, cost, and attractiveness of the players (e.g., an ogle factor). I assume for the typical hetero male, the decision for both the NBA game and the women’s soccer game is primarily driven by the first two (competition, cost), with ogling coming in as a distant last. It’s the hetero male that chooses the later that puzzles me because I think that decision must be almost completely dominated by the ogle factor. I just think there’s a lot better options for ogling, so I’m fascinated as to how the mental calculus results in going to a women’s lingerie football game.
Maybe the reality is that few people do that regularly and only do so once or twice for the novelty factor, getting their primary ogling fix somewhere else (e.g., aforementioned porn or strip clubs).
I find the Patriots cheerleading team ban on cheerleaders mixing with players to be probably well intentioned but awfully paternalistic.
My only experience with NFL cheerleaders came right out of college. A few months after moving into my working class apartment, two beautiful girls moved in right across the hall. After a mostly “InCel” experience in college (women were less than 15% of my engineering classes) I thought I had died and gone to heaven. The girls were very friendly and I wasn’t at all surprised to find out that they were 49er cheerleaders. (This was during the Joe Montana/Bill Walsh era so the 49ers were almost as dominant as the Patriots). My fantasies of my first 3 some quickly died, when two very large, very buff men showed up at their apartment the next weekend. It turns out the guys weren’t starters for the 49ers. The girls enjoyed dating the hunky, freshly minted millionaires who wined and dined them and I’m sure the players had fun also.
I remember thinking well this is the way of the world, cheerleaders date football players, in high school, college and so why not in the pros. From the prospective, SOME of the cheerleaders it seems like an important perk. They get a chance to meet the players, and IRC a number of the star players of the 1980s married cheerleaders.
It seems to me that it is a lot more fun to hang with the players, than to go the grand opening of the new car dealership, which it seemed to me were the main places both the 49ers and Raiders cheerleading squads went to.
