Reply to comment

Feb. 26, 2015, 8:02 a.m. -  Amanda

#!markdown There are also a few of those 'models' who have projected a false sense of skill through carefully edited photo shoots and videos. It's all about perception and, when looking at the amount of credence given to model/athletes, there is a far higher concentration of women versus men. These same model/athletes haven't had the competitive results they'd like, so instead, they play on their looks to get what they want and, as Seb said in the article, siphon off valuable resources from programs that could go to other athletes who prioritize their ability over aesthetics. And not to say that the skilled and accomplished athletes aren't attractive, either.. They've just chosen to show what the human body can do instead of simply display what it can look like. Call is marketing or exploitation, it's still cashing in on a genetic lottery, and it won't last. Using these model/athletes also creates a grossly inaccurate perception of what athletes actually look like, and it caters not to people passionate about the sport, but people looking for popularity points, thus creating an economic (and unsustainable) bubble inside of the sport because of false growth patterns. It's not just damaging for the future participants' mind sets, but also to the sport itself. There are far more factors at play that just 'sex sells' here. However, there are athletes who have both talent and marketable looks -- those athletes are usually rocketing to the top. But it's not always easy to differentiate between them and the model/athlete because of the presentation of said athletes.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.