Cyclepassion Calendar - Your view

[Anonymous]

This will probably degenerate and get closed, but lets see if we can have opinions without hitting the gutter..

you may select multiple options

My personal point of contention with it is photos like this

Two female pro cyclists, dressed like ***** watching the mens Tour de France.. not really a great advert for womens cycling.

 

[just some guy]

This will probably degenerate and get closed, but lets see if we can have opinions without hitting the gutter..

Sex sells Riders have seen it work in other sports.... is it a good move maybe short term wrong in the long term IMO.

Riders should ride the UCI should be positive towards female cycling and pressure race organisations and TV and therefore be doing their job to promote and Govern cycling.

But the UCI does nothing so some female cyclists get their gear off to promote the sport

 

[Anonymous]

And to make myself clear.. Im not anti sexualisation of women. If women want to photoshoots etc that is up to them. I think Vicky Pendleton does a calendar, Rochelle Gilmore has done some great shoots, but in those photo sets they are representing themselves.

In the cyclepassion sets they are because of the title, to an extent representing womens cycling. That for me is the difference.

And besides, Liz Hatch looks far sexier in cycling gear covered in mud than she does wearing a stupid costime chearing on the tdf

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Marketing to the male crotch has met with unparalleled success for thousands of years. Heck, half our brains and none of our common sense are there. It's a gold mine.

 

[Tuarts]

Well it's not llike they're getting interest based on their merits is it?

I don't know either of Liz Hatch or Victoria Andreasson so I can't speak for them but I would assume both provided their consent for a publicity stunt like this and at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

 

[Blackstone]

Certainly puts womens cycling out there.

Dont like the fact they've photoshopped the women into that situation. If they want them in front of a male race they should take them there and actually get the picture!

Kind of agree with Just Some Guy in that it's a short term loss for long term gain

 

[roundabout]

Blackstone, it's no photoshop. They were actually there.

 

[taiwan]

Obviously they look very nice, but really at this day in age it's BS. Makes the sport look chauvinist. Totally gratuitous - nothing to do with the women's sport, IMO (others will disagree). My first reaction to seeing the lovely and exceptionally talented Pauline Ferrand Prevost in it was annoyance: "They've got to her already? She's not even a pro yet! Ba$tards.". I admit my hypocracy though, I checked the whole photoset out, and it's clearly not the worst thing I've ever looked at on the net AHEM.

This thread will get moved BTW.

The above may be an overreaction though, it's not porn, and it might be that the women of the peloton don't even feel strongly about it. A view from that group would be helpful.

 

[Tuarts]

Marketing to the male crotch has met with unparalleled success for thousands of years. Heck, half our brains and none of our common sense are there. It's a gold mine.

Just ask the Movistar rider. :lol:

 

[Blackstone]

Blackstone, it's no photoshop. They were actually there.

Really?! In that case bravo to them and the photographer!

 

[Roland Rat]

Look at the imagery in that photo- the women are a soft-core sideshow while the men get on with the real racing. Isn't that exactly the kind of attitude that needs to be changed, not encouraged?

 

[AcademyCC]

Just ask the Movistar rider. :lol:

ha ha. Noticed that, hes about to fall over!

 

[jens_attacks]

how the hell is this soft porn? *** edited by mod ***
they look gorgeous,in the cycling kit not so much,women should have different kits than the men if they want a succesful sport.this is the future

 

[LaFlorecita]

Last option!

In all seriousness, the fourth option is what I'm picking.

 

[LaFlorecita]

*ahem* How come their shadow is lighter than the ones of everything else in the picture?

 

[Richeypen]

and to make myself clear.. Im not anti sexualisation of women. If women want to photoshoots etc that is up to them. I think vicky pendleton does a calendar, rochelle gilmore has done some great shoots, but in those photo sets they are representing themselves.

In the cyclepassion sets they are because of the title, to an extent representing womens cycling. That for me is the difference.

And besides, liz hatch looks far sexier in cycling gear covered in mud than she does wearing a stupid costime chearing on the tdf

+1



.

 

[ansimi]

If that's a typical picture for the calender then it's not positive. Women cyclists need to find ways to promote their sport and themselves but that probably won't help.

I do agree that the kits worn in women's cycling aren't very flattering to a woman's body. They're just an imitation of what the men wear. I have way cuter cycling clothes that perform just as well. I'm a female recreational athlete and I would think that sponsors would want to target me when they get involved in women's cycling. I don't want to wear ugly cycling clothes that make me look like a man with weird lumps but I also don't want to wear a tutu with bare feet at the side of a road with my back turned to the race. Huh?

It's not the stupidest thing we've seen along the road at the TDF though...

 

[ramjambunath]

Last option!

In all seriousness, the fourth option is what I'm picking.

Pozzato Sidi

 

[ElChingon]

First thing, isn't it ironic that the main CN site is giving them away yet we can't post those pictures in just any thread where the topic pops up in. Second, now they're giving them away to the CN readers, I'm sure some mods are probably in a twisted undergarmet state

Second or I mean third, no one and I mean no one can stop human nature and natural inbread instincts. There are more such calendars and posters to follow, gee no one has visited those calendar booths popping up at all the malls and strip-malls if not sidewalk booths around their town I guess.

No matter how high some people raise their noses it will be there and raising a huff about it only brings them to even more attention than they previously were.

Thanks for the multiple vote option

 

[Zam_Olyas]

One,two and three..i mean 4

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It has both positives and negatives. Names become known, a bit of money is earnt, riders have fun, women's cycling gets talked about. On the other hand, it gets talked about for the same reasons that often hold it back, and it limits the crossover appeal of the riders along lines that have nothing to do with their quality as cyclists.

It's the same for the men, but on a more limited basis; perhaps riders like Liz Hatch are benefited at the expense of more talented but apparently less attractive ones, but then Sidi or Selle Italia aren't going to ask Emanuele Sella or José Rujano to become their public face anytime soon either. And if you get somebody who is successful and attractive, it can galvanise fan interest. I agree with dim however that photographing women's pros looking like groupies at the men's race is not the best way to make them in any way respectable.

There are calendars like this in lots of different sports, both of men and of women, and they have their positives and negatives there too. Cycling's no different.

 

[Christian]

I think it conveys a positive image of women's cycling and women's sports in general. Some people tend to think that "being a lady", being sexy and so on doesn't go with being a professional athlete (at least most sports, tennis excluded). This shows that there is more than black and white, and that the two go very well together. I think the German national women's football team did the same thing not too long ago. Plus of course it promotes a sport that is very unknown to the public when it comes to women.

They also did a good job of including the pictures of them racing or of their cuts and bruises such as this one

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/win-a-cyclepassion-calendar-2012/199879

I think it gives a nice balance

 

[Christian]

Last option!

In all seriousness, the fourth option is what I'm picking.

bow-chicka-wah-wah

 

[Maxiton]

I think it could be better, and probably would be better, if they were naked. And that's what I chose in the poll.

In order for that to work, though, they'd need: a better art director, better photographer, better publisher, and a totally different and better overall approach. They'd need to take a chance, try for something interesting, exciting, different, daring.

Instead, year after year they serve up something totally impoverished, devoid of any imagination or real effort. As though they say to themselves, Female cyclists? Great, throw in some lingerie and heels and cheap makeup and call it a day. Cheese and sleaze (and not the good kind of sleaze either). To me, there's nothing erotic about it.

Which accounts for my other choice in the poll: this conveys a negative image of women's pro cycling.

They could have made something that was beautiful and sensuous, centered around the form of the female athlete, or even something scandalous. What they make instead is noteworthy only for its utter mediocrity.

Can you tell I don't like it?

 

[Maxiton]

I think it conveys a positive image of women's cycling and women's sports in general. Some people tend to think that "being a lady", being sexy and so on doesn't go with being a professional athlete (at least most sports, tennis excluded). This shows that there is more than black and white, and that the two go very well together. I think the German national women's football team did the same thing not too long ago. Plus of course it promotes a sport that is very unknown to the public when it comes to women.

They also did a good job of including the pictures of them racing or of their cuts and bruises such as this one

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/win-a-cyclepassion-calendar-2012/199879

I think it gives a nice balance

That's not bad. At least it's heading in the right direction. Could have used more of that and less of the other.