BJJ & Women: Who is stealing their gi pants?

Nobody forces these women to pose like that - they choose to do so to make more money. If anyone should be offended it should be the men who aren't afforded the same opportunities.

It's true but I'm not sure that them not being forced is necessarily key to the sexism argument. I think the culture we have about women tends to assume it's going to happen which is a powerful influence on some women thinking it's normal to do this.

I enjoy looking at attractive women as much as anyone but I find it harder to justify when I think of my own daughter looking at the pictures or god forbid posing in them later in life. I don't want her growing up thinking that is what being a female is about. It's hard enough with all the stupid pop videos where 90% of women dress and act like porn stars knowing full well most of their sales come from little girls and boys.

Just because some women agree to do it doesn't make it a good idea. There were slaves in the US that used to boss and punish other slaves.
 
Everything from cars to beer is advertised with scantily-clad women these days, and if the ads were being run in parts of Europe, the models would most likely be nude. Nobody seems to have died as a result, but I kind of feel sorry for men who truly expect their wives and girlfriends to look that way without an airbrush and Photoshop.

I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch simply because a few gear manufacturers think they can market gi that way.

It's not that different from seeing some woman in a bikini posing on a car. It makes a lot of women mock the manufacturers and it leads to disturbing Internet meme spoofs, but the advertisers and manufacturers are grown-ups and understand the risks.

As long as sex remains an effective way to sell merchandise, at least some manufacturers are going to use it. If at some point it stops being effective because too many people are grossed out or annoyed, or because the product becomes a laughingstock, the manufacturers will switch to talking lizards or maybe even something relevant to the product.
 
LOL at the gracie mag journalist who was bitching about the ufc signing that russian chick and it being all about sex appeal then stating that shit like that would never fly in BJJ (using chicks to sell BJJ). These pics on and many others say otherwise.

anyhow, why steal gi pants? go for the panties dude.
 
There are plenty of those types in BJJ thanks to the association with MMA.

it can be argued that the majority of posters in this forum would not be doing bjj if not for the association and spotlight on bjj provided by MMA.
 
4951_01_450x675.jpg
 
That's right. BJJ porn is now a thing.

There's a Courtney chick who does a scene wearing an Atama. Uh, so I heard.

Anyway, as amusing as it is to me, I wonder if things have gone too far.
 
It's true but I'm not sure that them not being forced is necessarily key to the sexism argument. I think the culture we have about women tends to assume it's going to happen which is a powerful influence on some women thinking it's normal to do this.

I enjoy looking at attractive women as much as anyone but I find it harder to justify when I think of my own daughter looking at the pictures or god forbid posing in them later in life. I don't want her growing up thinking that is what being a female is about. It's hard enough with all the stupid pop videos where 90% of women dress and act like porn stars knowing full well most of their sales come from little girls and boys.

Just because some women agree to do it doesn't make it a good idea. There were slaves in the US that used to boss and punish other slaves.

It is sad that societies with strong feministic influence can lead people believe that admiring the human form is somehow oppressive and derogatory. In this case, finding the human form as appealing is the just as bad as the power struggles within the hierarchy of human slavery.

Can you please explain to me why the first picture is sexually oppressive and the second is not? Think about it and convince me that the only reason why people will claim the first as sexually objectifying and the second not is because of the feministic influence in your country.

20131004-210850.jpg


cagefighting-2.jpg
 
It is sad that societies with strong feministic influence can lead people believe that admiring the human form is somehow oppressive and derogatory. In this case, finding the human form as appealing is the just as bad as the power struggles within the hierarchy of human slavery.

Can you please explain to me why the first picture is sexually oppressive and the second is not? Think about it and convince me that the only reason why people will claim the first as sexually objectifying and the second not is because of the feministic influence in your country.

20131004-210850.jpg


cagefighting-2.jpg
Because Shogun is posing as if he's about to fight. He fights in exactly that gear (although the gloves and cup are missing). The composition of the image and the selection of the model (Shogun) suggests that this is a fighter. He has these skills, he can do these things and he wears this Bad Boy gear.

The woman is just posing to show herself off in a sexually suggestive way. Her gi top alone isn't matched with shorts (sambo/Danaher style), she's wearing non-functional heels and she's apparently draped herself on what appears to be a warehouse door for who knows what the fuck reason.

That's the difference. It has nothing to do with your boogeyman of "feministic influence" or not appreciating the beauty of the human form.

It would be entirely possible for the woman to pose in a manner suggesting that she too has competence in fighting or exercise, while wearing BJJ gear or even wearing skin-revealing clothing. But the people behind the image didn't pose her that way. The people behind Shogun's image did.
 
LOL I want to see Shogun in makeup and high heels...there is a huge difference between the images.
 
That's right. BJJ porn is now a thing.

There's a Courtney chick who does a scene wearing an Atama. Uh, so I heard.

Anyway, as amusing as it is to me, I wonder if things have gone too far.

Can you pm a link?
 
I would take her posts on this a lot more seriously if it wasn't for the Defense Soap post she made..... Getting offended by that ad is just TOO much and hurts the rest of her posts -.-
 
It is sad that societies with strong feministic influence can lead people believe that admiring the human form is somehow oppressive and derogatory. In this case, finding the human form as appealing is the just as bad as the power struggles within the hierarchy of human slavery.

Can you please explain to me why the first picture is sexually oppressive and the second is not? Think about it and convince me that the only reason why people will claim the first as sexually objectifying and the second not is because of the feministic influence in your country.

20131004-210850.jpg


cagefighting-2.jpg

The guy looks like he is looking to punch someone, the woman looks like she is looking to get laid.

I don't find either offensive, but comparing them is an apples to oranges thing. My only issue with the sexy women in oddly scanty bits of a BJJ outfit who look like they would rather fuck you then choke you is context. Yes, sure stick this stuff in porno or in any magazine where sexy images should go. No, don't put these pretty come hither gals in advertisements for BJJ that go in mainstream BJJ magazines or websites etc... Not offensive images at all, just out of place. BJJ is awkward enough without the sexy references.
 
I would take her posts on this a lot more seriously if it wasn't for the Defense Soap post she made..... Getting offended by that ad is just TOO much and hurts the rest of her posts -.-

From what I could figure from the post on Defense Soap and the discussion is the issue is NOT that a guy and gal are naked in the shower. The issue was the pronouns that target the guy as being the MMA/BJJ competitor and the gal as not being one. If I remember right the catch line was something like "she might do califlower ear but she won't do ringworm."

Honestly I don't know what I think about this one but..... I do know that fact you might not agree with one of her posts doesn't mean her other post isn't worth consideration.

If BJJ wants to grow and appeal to more women, it is worth considering the impact of all the sexy scantily clad BJJish girls in advertisements. Sure, they are allowed to pose like this and sure this might sell gear to guys and even sure there is nothing inherently wrong with showing a sexy woman but is it really good for the sport? If BJJ wants to remain a masculine domain then by all means using sexy gals to sell product is a fine strategy. If BJJ wants to broaden it's appeal to women and children then it is worth some more consideration.
 
Judging by some of these women look, they would be flattered. Just because you train doesn't mean everyone wants you.
 
The woman is just posing to show herself off in a sexually suggestive way.

That's the difference. It has nothing to do with your boogeyman of "feministic influence" or not appreciating the beauty of the human form.

If it does not, then why does partial nudity in some countries equate to sex, and partial nudities in others not? Further, why does partial nudity on a woman equate to sexual oppression, and partial nudity on a man not equate to sexual oppression.

Pushing it even further, why is it that many people in my country and your country demonize men for finding partial nudity sexy?

During my undergraduate and Masters studies, I had to take a lot of human sexuality classes and classes on feminism, gender roles, and cultural views on sexual health. I find it very interesting the opinions of combat sport athletes on the subject compared to the general public.
 
If it does not, then why does partial nudity in some countries equate to sex, and partial nudities in others not?
I don't know. That's an enormous question best left to those experienced with it.

Further, why does partial nudity on a woman equate to sexual oppression, and partial nudity on a man not equate to sexual oppression.
The context in the specific photos you gave are the reason why it's exploitation of sex for the woman's pose and not for Shogun's. It is not a universal reason or key to this. It's not sexual oppression either.

Pushing it even further, why is it that many people in my country and your country demonize men for finding partial nudity sexy?
There isn't any real demonization of men going on - in fact, the most coveted advertising demographic is 18-49 year old men and a shit ton of ads specifically designed to link products with sexy partial nudity are all over the place. To paraphrase The Big Lebowski, "The demonization is over. Condolences. The bums lost."

The idea here isn't to demonize at all. It's to ask why are companies trying to push their grappling related products with ads featuring a specific kind nudity (linked to sex, rather than skill or other type of appeal) of women and whether that is a good or acceptable thing.

It gets a bit grating on me - and I'm not a woman - to see the overwhelming majority of women in ads being used to sell the product with their boobs, rather than any perceived competence or anything like that like most of the men are. Basically, the ad companies are constantly telling me that they think I'm likely to be someone who lets a pretty face empty my wallet.

That gets extended into stuff like "Only a pretty face can empty wallets. If not a pretty face, worthless. We can build pretty faces for this amount of money. Platinum members of the Pretty Face Club can get butt implants and the secrets of Hollywood fame as relayed to you by an email draft I screenshotted off Mr X's TrueCrypted tablet that he set fire to after I compromised infosec just to give you it for 49.95 a month in perpetuity. Yeeeehaw!"
 
Back
Top