ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by ssdrivin on Aug 4, 2020 5:03:44 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. The male wrestlers who are mostly in good shape, pretty good looking guys, and wrestle in very little clothes aren't eye candy? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who enjoy ogling the men while they wrestle. What I'm saying is, just because the men aren't trying to be sexy, doesn't mean they don't come off as sexy to lots of fans of any gender. Which is just fine by me. And I say this as a secure heterosexual male.
I was gonna make that point earlier, I was thinking "but... if you're into dudes, almost the entire show is wall to wall guys wearing nothing but a pair of trunks, that's pretty naked". But then I thought about that for a second, and figured "well... ok, but I guess the female wrestlers are also dressed in very aesthetically pleasing ways too", so I kinda had to score that 1-1. If you think about it that way, you'd have to have male dancers too, so then you'd have male + female wrestlers and male + female dancers.
But ultimately, meh, I don't watch wrestling for sexiness, so I don't particularly care either way. It's a bunch of people, male and female, both of which are dressed (or undressed) in ways which highlight their bodily attributes. There's a technical difference, yeah, in that the dancers are (intended to be) purely visual, the focus isn't supposed to be the dancing, it's supposed to be about them being attractive women. That, as opposed to all the wrestlers, male and female, being primarily wrestlers and not primarily eye candy. So the "equality" argument would be that you need men who are there just to look pretty too, as well as men who happen to be good wrestlers who also look good. But as a complete show? Yeah, it's clearly designed for sex appeal in both directions, dancers or no dancers.
I agree though, it's not like the show is short on dudes wearing not much, and that's clearly no accident, and I don't think it matters that much. The whole show is set up to be visually attractive to various types of people and, while there's going to be some tweaking for demographics, I think from the viewer's perspective there's a little something for everyone, so it's not just 3 hours of "hehe, look, the lady has boobies!".
|
|
|
Post by häšhtå.gdālėÿ on Aug 4, 2020 5:11:35 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. The male wrestlers who are mostly in good shape, are pretty good looking guys, and wrestle in very little clothes aren't eye candy? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who enjoy ogling the men while they wrestle. What I'm saying is, just because the men aren't trying to be sexy, doesn't mean they don't come off as sexy to lots of fans of any gender. Which is just fine by me. And I say this as a secure heterosexual male. Watch Finn Balor’s entrance and tell me that isn’t sexy to some folks watching. Dude shoves his crotch into your living room while wearing skin tight leather underwear. Lmao
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Aug 4, 2020 5:25:04 GMT -5
I get how it could be so jarring to have that given how much they’ve tried to steer away from that kind of thing with their female roster in the last few years, but you have to remember that it wasn’t JUST the content itself back in the day that comes under criticism, it’s the fact that for most of the time between, say, 1996 and 2015 (other than that brief period for RAW in 2003/2004), that was the only kind of stuff WWE put their women in. Things aren’t perfect but at least this stuff is a rare outlier as opposed to the norm (for example, 11 female talents were featured tonight as part of four different feuds/angles/storylines).
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,602
|
Post by PKO on Aug 4, 2020 5:37:20 GMT -5
Five years ago, they would've been the three top women's wrestlers in the company. I get how it could be so jarring to have that given how much they’ve tried to steer away from that kind of thing with their female roster in the last few years, but you have to remember that it wasn’t JUST the content itself back in the day that comes under criticism, it’s the fact that for most of the time between, say, 1996 and 2015 (other than that brief period for RAW in 2003/2004), that was the only kind of stuff WWE put their women in. Things aren’t perfect but at least this stuff is a rare outlier as opposed to the norm (for example, 11 female talents were featured tonight as part of four different feuds/angles/storylines). A combination of these. I didn’t have any issue with the dancers, and don’t think it negatively affects the amazing distance WWE has come with the women’s division. It’s not that long ago that this same segment would have had Kelly or Eve dancing, with no other women for the rest of the show. That was an issue for me; terrible representation for the women and a lack of care or interest from management. We now have women of different shapes, looks, ethnicities and orientations who are much more evenly featured on RAW, Smackdown and NXT. There is still work to be done but something like this was not an issue in the slightest for me. Also, WWE has probably missed out on millions of dollars not taking advantage of the fact they have ridiculously good looking men who they could put on magazines, calendars, in photoshoots and whatever the hell else they can make money on. WWE is a business: stopping women from doing those kinds of things wasn’t the smart thing to do, doing a men’s version of everything they made the divas do was the smart thing to do.
|
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by ssdrivin on Aug 4, 2020 5:50:05 GMT -5
Five years ago, they would've been the three top women's wrestlers in the company. I get how it could be so jarring to have that given how much they’ve tried to steer away from that kind of thing with their female roster in the last few years, but you have to remember that it wasn’t JUST the content itself back in the day that comes under criticism, it’s the fact that for most of the time between, say, 1996 and 2015 (other than that brief period for RAW in 2003/2004), that was the only kind of stuff WWE put their women in. Things aren’t perfect but at least this stuff is a rare outlier as opposed to the norm (for example, 11 female talents were featured tonight as part of four different feuds/angles/storylines). A combination of these. I didn’t have any issue with the dancers, and don’t think it negatively affects the amazing distance WWE has come with the women’s division. It’s not that long ago that this same segment would have had Kelly or Eve dancing, with no other women for the rest of the show. That was an issue for me; terrible representation for the women and a lack of care or interest from management. We now have women of different shapes, looks, ethnicities and orientations who are much more evenly featured on RAW, Smackdown and NXT. There is still work to be done but something like this was not an issue in the slightest for me. Also, WWE has probably missed out on millions of dollars not taking advantage of the fact they have ridiculously good looking men who they could put on magazines, calendars, in photoshoots and whatever the hell else they can make money on. WWE is a business: stopping women from doing those kinds of things wasn’t the smart thing to do, doing a men’s version of everything they made the divas do was the smart thing to do.
Hey now, Vince McMahon's been on the cover of Muscle & Fitness how many times by this point?
But yeah, pretty much what all the quoted posters above said. WWE has women for all kinds of roles now, not just sexy dancers (who may be presented as wrestlers in job title only), so it's all good in my book if they want to hire a few specifically for those roles.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Aug 4, 2020 5:53:00 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. The male wrestlers who are mostly in good shape, are pretty good looking guys, and wrestle in very little clothes aren't eye candy? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who enjoy ogling the men while they wrestle. What I'm saying is, just because the men aren't trying to be sexy, doesn't mean they don't come off as sexy to lots of fans of any gender. Which is just fine by me. And I say this as a secure heterosexual male. It's about presentation. Being attractive in general is not the same as being framed as attractive and having the efforts of the camera emphasize that. The emphasis of "Here are these sexy ladies who dance, they're dancing" and the way the camera views them is substantially different not just to how the men look, but even to the women. Look at the differences fundamentally between them last night, and Naomi's entrance. She dances, but there isn't anything about the camera work or the way she's positioning herself that comes off specifically like it's trying to be sexy or that the main note her presence is supposed to hit is sexy. It's the same ways that Kratos from God of War isn't inherently sexual but a fighting game ninja wearing a skintight outfit that somehow still jiggles like mad is. Physical attractiveness and being sexualized aren't the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Aug 4, 2020 5:56:33 GMT -5
Also, WWE has probably missed out on millions of dollars not taking advantage of the fact they have ridiculously good looking men who they could put on magazines, calendars, in photoshoots and whatever the hell else they can make money on. WWE is a business: stopping women from doing those kinds of things wasn’t the smart thing to do, doing a men’s version of everything they made the divas do was the smart thing to do. Right?! Like, it doesn’t have to be naked but you couldn’t get a photo shoot with one of your most attractive guys instead of several puff pieces in Variety? Come on.
|
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by ssdrivin on Aug 4, 2020 6:01:29 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. The male wrestlers who are mostly in good shape, are pretty good looking guys, and wrestle in very little clothes aren't eye candy? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who enjoy ogling the men while they wrestle. What I'm saying is, just because the men aren't trying to be sexy, doesn't mean they don't come off as sexy to lots of fans of any gender. Which is just fine by me. And I say this as a secure heterosexual male. It's about presentation. Being attractive in general is not the same as being framed as attractive and having the efforts of the camera emphasize that. The emphasis of "Here are these sexy ladies who dance, they're dancing" and the way the camera views them is substantially different not just to how the men look, but even to the women. Look at the differences fundamentally between them last night, and Naomi's entrance. She dances, but there isn't anything about the camera work or the way she's positioning herself that comes off specifically like it's trying to be sexy or that the main note her presence is supposed to hit is sexy. It's the same ways that Kratos from God of War isn't inherently sexual but a fighting game ninja wearing a skintight outfit that somehow still jiggles like mad is. Physical attractiveness and being sexualized aren't the same thing.
I see what you're saying, but let's not pretend that oiled up beefcake flexing muscles most people don't even know they have whilst walking to or waiting in the ring isn't specifically designed to show off as much body as there is to show off on PG TV. It might not be pointing a camera at a woman's arse, but it's still heavily appearance-based.
Admittedly there's the element of sporting prowess too, to be in such fine figure through training that you can look like that, but I think it'd be naive to pretend these guys aren't optimised to be ogle-friendly, even if you're not explicitly shoving a camera down their pants to show off their reproductive organs.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Aug 4, 2020 6:03:56 GMT -5
It's about presentation. Being attractive in general is not the same as being framed as attractive and having the efforts of the camera emphasize that. The emphasis of "Here are these sexy ladies who dance, they're dancing" and the way the camera views them is substantially different not just to how the men look, but even to the women. Look at the differences fundamentally between them last night, and Naomi's entrance. She dances, but there isn't anything about the camera work or the way she's positioning herself that comes off specifically like it's trying to be sexy or that the main note her presence is supposed to hit is sexy. It's the same ways that Kratos from God of War isn't inherently sexual but a fighting game ninja wearing a skintight outfit that somehow still jiggles like mad is. Physical attractiveness and being sexualized aren't the same thing. I see what you're saying, but let's not pretend that oiled up beefcake flexing muscles most people don't even know they have whilst walking to or waiting in the ring isn't specifically designed to show off as much body as there is to show off on PG TV. It might not be pointing a camera at a woman's arse, but it's still heavily appearance-based. Admittedly there's the element of sporting prowess too, to be in such fine figure through training that you can look like that, but I think it'd be naive to pretend these guys aren't optimised to be ogle-friendly, even if you're not explicitly shoving a camera down their pants to show off their reproductive organs.
It’s less ogling and more admiration. There was a reason Vince was a body guy was because he wanted to have the biggest and strongest dudes use their big and strong bodies to beat up everyone around them and why other body types were treated differently. Whilst when it came to the women, at least when they were prominently eye candy, the emphasis on commentary and presentation was “Look at their boobs and asses” and less about in ring stuff.
|
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by ssdrivin on Aug 4, 2020 6:10:49 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, but let's not pretend that oiled up beefcake flexing muscles most people don't even know they have whilst walking to or waiting in the ring isn't specifically designed to show off as much body as there is to show off on PG TV. It might not be pointing a camera at a woman's arse, but it's still heavily appearance-based. Admittedly there's the element of sporting prowess too, to be in such fine figure through training that you can look like that, but I think it'd be naive to pretend these guys aren't optimised to be ogle-friendly, even if you're not explicitly shoving a camera down their pants to show off their reproductive organs.
It’s less ogling and more admiration. There was a reason Vince was a body guy was because he wanted to have the biggest and strongest dudes use their big and strong bodies to beat up everyone around them and why other body types were treated differently. Whilst when it came to the women, at least when they were prominently eye candy, the emphasis on commentary and presentation was “Look at their boobs and asses” and less about in ring stuff. Oh, definitely, especially in the Attitude era and early to mid-00s. But there's definitely an element of physical attractiveness, I've heard various anecdotes involving variations on "my girlfriend watches wrestling with me, but only because she likes looking at (super-toned muscle guy), but I don't mind, at least we get to enjoy it together". I don't think that demographic will have escaped WWE's research department. It's a convenient byproduct if not the primary goal, you have big toned muscle dudes for the fitness/sports-inclined, and you have big toned muscle dudes for the "I'd like to do adult things with that person"-inclined.
I do see that there's a difference between "this person is purely here to be ornamental" and "this person has a role and also happens to be incidentally ornamental", don't get me wrong, but this sure isn't the 1970s any more, with big pillowy dudes throwing haymakers.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Aug 4, 2020 6:12:53 GMT -5
Also, WWE has probably missed out on millions of dollars not taking advantage of the fact they have ridiculously good looking men who they could put on magazines, calendars, in photoshoots and whatever the hell else they can make money on. WWE is a business: stopping women from doing those kinds of things wasn’t the smart thing to do, doing a men’s version of everything they made the divas do was the smart thing to do. Right?! Like, it doesn’t have to be naked but you couldn’t get a photo shoot with one of your most attractive guys instead of several puff pieces in Variety? Come on. I mean, f***, they’ve had a male model on their books since 2013, and not once they’ve thought to do a sexy calendar?
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Aug 4, 2020 6:28:01 GMT -5
It's about presentation. Being attractive in general is not the same as being framed as attractive and having the efforts of the camera emphasize that. The emphasis of "Here are these sexy ladies who dance, they're dancing" and the way the camera views them is substantially different not just to how the men look, but even to the women. Look at the differences fundamentally between them last night, and Naomi's entrance. She dances, but there isn't anything about the camera work or the way she's positioning herself that comes off specifically like it's trying to be sexy or that the main note her presence is supposed to hit is sexy. It's the same ways that Kratos from God of War isn't inherently sexual but a fighting game ninja wearing a skintight outfit that somehow still jiggles like mad is. Physical attractiveness and being sexualized aren't the same thing. I see what you're saying, but let's not pretend that oiled up beefcake flexing muscles most people don't even know they have whilst walking to or waiting in the ring isn't specifically designed to show off as much body as there is to show off on PG TV. It might not be pointing a camera at a woman's arse, but it's still heavily appearance-based. Admittedly there's the element of sporting prowess too, to be in such fine figure through training that you can look like that, but I think it'd be naive to pretend these guys aren't optimised to be ogle-friendly, even if you're not explicitly shoving a camera down their pants to show off their reproductive organs.
I understand what you're saying, but you need to still think about it contextually. The sporting prowess is definitely a factor here than I think you're giving it credit for, not just in the why but in what it says to the audience. The guys who flex their muscles up are doing it to show off how strong they are. It's a mark of manly power and physical excellence in Vinceland, the only characters who really contextualize the way they're in such great shape are your overtly sexual characters. Val Venis, for instance. When Triple H and Scott Steiner have a pose-off, it's not to titillate people into excessively muscular men (insert 'Vince reacting to Gary Strydom' gif here) but to show how strong and masculine they are. The attractiveness is secondary to their strength/manliness/fitness/wrestling ability. Therein is the exact difference I mean between being attractive and being sexual ized.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,483
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Aug 4, 2020 6:37:40 GMT -5
I get how it could be so jarring to have that given how much they’ve tried to steer away from that kind of thing with their female roster in the last few years, but you have to remember that it wasn’t JUST the content itself back in the day that comes under criticism, it’s the fact that for most of the time between, say, 1996 and 2015 (other than that brief period for RAW in 2003/2004), that was the only kind of stuff WWE put their women in. Things aren’t perfect but at least this stuff is a rare outlier as opposed to the norm (for example, 11 female talents were featured tonight as part of four different feuds/angles/storylines). This.
|
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by ssdrivin on Aug 4, 2020 6:51:52 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, but let's not pretend that oiled up beefcake flexing muscles most people don't even know they have whilst walking to or waiting in the ring isn't specifically designed to show off as much body as there is to show off on PG TV. It might not be pointing a camera at a woman's arse, but it's still heavily appearance-based. Admittedly there's the element of sporting prowess too, to be in such fine figure through training that you can look like that, but I think it'd be naive to pretend these guys aren't optimised to be ogle-friendly, even if you're not explicitly shoving a camera down their pants to show off their reproductive organs.
I understand what you're saying, but you need to still think about it contextually. The sporting prowess is definitely a factor here than I think you're giving it credit for, not just in the why but in what it says to the audience. The guys who flex their muscles up are doing it to show off how strong they are. It's a mark of manly power and physical excellence in Vinceland, the only characters who really contextualize the way they're in such great shape are your overtly sexual characters. Val Venis, for instance. When Triple H and Scott Steiner have a pose-off, it's not to titillate people into excessively muscular men (insert 'Vince reacting to Gary Strydom' gif here) but to show how strong and masculine they are. The attractiveness is secondary to their strength/manliness/fitness/wrestling ability. Therein is the exact difference I mean between being attractive and being sexual ized.
Sure, I agree with that, I have mentioned similar thoughts earlier in the thread, there's definitely a difference between "is wrestler, happens to be physically attractive" and simply "is physically attractive", I'm just also agreeing with the previous poster who pointed out that there's also a significant element of physical attractiveness present in the male wrestlers which comes with that fitness, toning, and not wearing a whole lot of clothes, which might be a strong factor in some portions of the viewership.
I suppose my ultimate point is that, although I personally don't watch for titilation purposes I am aware that there is (or certainly was) a perceived imbalance between the level of focus on feminine attractiveness and the level of focus on masculine attractiveness. But while I respect and agree with the reasons people were uncomfortable with the way women have previously been portrayed on WWE TV, when it comes to the question of objectification I don't think it's unreasonable to factor in the amount of practically naked toned and muscular male bodies on show which may also, for some viewers, be considered titilating content. I suppose you could even potentially argue that the fitness aspect itself could be considered objectification on Vince's part, as opposed to a sexual objectification. I won't, just now, but you could.
There's a heavy focus on how the women were treated, and that's fair enough, they were practically treated as hyper-realistic sex dolls back in the gravy bowl and pillow fight days, but now the women are (mostly) treated like actual wrestlers again, their male counterparts should be considered too when talking about how much titilation value, for lack of a better term, is being given/presented by the shows. I would say that wrestling content as a whole knowingly has a physical attractiveness value beyond pure sporting and fitness prowess which will factor into demographic targets and such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2020 7:13:04 GMT -5
Five years ago, they would've been the three top women's wrestlers in the company. I get how it could be so jarring to have that given how much they’ve tried to steer away from that kind of thing with their female roster in the last few years, but you have to remember that it wasn’t JUST the content itself back in the day that comes under criticism, it’s the fact that for most of the time between, say, 1996 and 2015 (other than that brief period for RAW in 2003/2004), that was the only kind of stuff WWE put their women in. Things aren’t perfect but at least this stuff is a rare outlier as opposed to the norm (for example, 11 female talents were featured tonight as part of four different feuds/angles/storylines). A combination of these. I didn’t have any issue with the dancers, and don’t think it negatively affects the amazing distance WWE has come with the women’s division. It’s not that long ago that this same segment would have had Kelly or Eve dancing, with no other women for the rest of the show. That was an issue for me; terrible representation for the women and a lack of care or interest from management. We now have women of different shapes, looks, ethnicities and orientations who are much more evenly featured on RAW, Smackdown and NXT. There is still work to be done but something like this was not an issue in the slightest for me. Also, WWE has probably missed out on millions of dollars not taking advantage of the fact they have ridiculously good looking men who they could put on magazines, calendars, in photoshoots and whatever the hell else they can make money on. WWE is a business: stopping women from doing those kinds of things wasn’t the smart thing to do, doing a men’s version of everything they made the divas do was the smart thing to do. I think part of the problem was they were deathly afraid they were gonna come off as "gay". So it was cool to constantly feature your female talent in various photo shoots in the early to mid 2000s and release videos and calendars, but having some of your male wrestlers pose in the desert or in a locker room in their gear would come off as homoerotic. It's that weird double standard in which you were more than happy to exploit the women but you only presented the men as dominant unless they had some element of their character had a non-traditional sexual personality or lifestyle, at which case, they were comedic. Examples in this time period included, obviously, Billy & Chuck being the most blatant, but also Rico, and the blink-and-you-missed-them tag team pairs of The Dicks and The Heart Throbs. I'm getting into this weird area, but it's kind of why some folks think lesbianism is supposedly "hot" as long as the women are attractive, but anything else homosexual is a no-no.
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Aug 4, 2020 7:34:40 GMT -5
Dancers in a club? Next, they will be having ladies in bikinis lounging around the arena...
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,416
|
Post by XIII on Aug 4, 2020 7:47:33 GMT -5
It’s supposed to be a gritty underground fight club. In every instance of that that I’ve seen on film and in other media(minus Fight Club) there are always dancers. Are professional sports leagues sexist when they cut to shots of scantily clad cheerleaders dancing? If that was the only way that women were portrayed or able to appear on the show then there would be a problem, but as it is they were essentially background character actors. Seems like not a big deal to me. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Aug 4, 2020 8:13:42 GMT -5
On its own, I don't find anything offensive about sexy girl dancers on a fight show. But thanks to WWE being total ass with generally depicting women throughout its history, they lost their benefit of the doubt with everything pertaining to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2020 8:23:54 GMT -5
WWE taking women seriously was only ever a ploy to entice Rousey to work for them. Once it became clear she was done with wrestling the facade was never gonna' last.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Aug 4, 2020 8:30:18 GMT -5
|
|