#MeToo goes full prude. Never go full prude!

[RavenSky]

As with most things, there's a pragmatic solution that arguably represents a good, win-win compromise all round.

If you're watching F1 on tv or at the event itself, and you wish there were grid girls, simply use some sort of hand-held device to log on to a suitable sexy pics website. That way, you can still get to watch the race and hot women at the same time. Problem solved, surely.

Excellent suggestion.

And Derec clearly has plenty of 'grid girl' photos saved on his computer, so he is all set.

 

[ruby sparks]

You have the right idea, but your pragmatic solution does not require to change the grid girl system, so why not keep it?

From your link:
" The grid girl concept is a controversial one and was scrapped altogether by the World Endurance Championship at the start of the 2015 season. At the time, series CEO Gerard Neveu said: 'For me, that is the past. The condition of women is a little bit different now.' "
http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/12948330/sebastian-vettel-monaco-grid-boys-point

Now, you may disagree with him, and many others may disagree with him, but that is one of the whys for many people.

I suspect that the main reason for dropping grid girls is commercial. Women fans currently make up 40% of the audience and the organisers are keen to appeal to the untapped part of the market, including attracting sponsorship and advertising from companies selling to women and companies who don't necessarily want to be seen to be behind the times on gender issues.

Michel Boeri (who instigated the grid boys in your link) and Gerard Neveu both probably have their heads screwed on and their financial priorities to the forefront.

It's worth noting that F1 lost one-third of its global audience between 2008 and 2016. It is reported that young people especially are not getting involved so much. TV viewing figures have reportedly dropped by 40 per cent among the under-25's in the USA since 2000.

They may be gambling that they will, in the long run, win more fans (and thereby money to keep the sport going) than they will lose.

It's true that declining viewing figures is not just a problem for motor sports, especially since the rise of the internet and the economic downturn after 2007, and it's also true that some of the decline is down to motor sport moving (in some countries) from free-to-view to pay channels, but it still means motor sport is trying to up its appeal.

The other hidden factor (as regards the general appeal of the sport), imo, might be that gas-guzzling machines are not seen as universally cool and classy as they used to be, given that in the world outside motor sport, they are increasingly seen as contributing to adverse climate change and choking up the air we breathe, and that issue has been on the rise and likely to continue to become more prominent in the future.

F1 can't afford to risk being a declining brand in the future.

 

[Frikki]

There's nothing in there about shaming society into finding unattractive women appealing.

Nothing in that particular quote you mean.

There's no contradiction between wanting the freedom to breastfeed a baby in public and being opposed to sexism in the media, the workplace, and in our everyday interactions IRL and on the internet.

It is freedom for her to breastfeed in public, but at the same time deny other people their freedom for entertainment they want or employment they willingly enter. Freedom for me but not for thee.
Not a logical contradiction, but certainly a buttload of hypocrisy.

Have you ever in your adult life had a conversation with a woman that is not part of some sort of transaction, not with a barista or the lady at the DMV? You seem to live a life where women are like a different species to you.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's true that banning a type of entertainment infringes on the freedom of people to enjoy it. That doesn't mean banning it is wrong. There are all sorts of entertainments that have been banned due to the general consensus that they are detrimental to our society; dogfighting and hazing come to mind.

I'm not getting on Derec's side, but just want to focus on these particular comments you made.
Those are not banned because "they are detrimental to society". They are banned because they cause direct harm to the participants.
Given that "detrimental to society" is so vague and undefined that it can (and historically has) mean almost anything, it should not be acceptable as a criteria to ban any activity, whether entertainment or otherwise. With dogfighting, it is b/c it causes deadly harm and the animals are forced into it. You get put in a ring with another killer dog and you better fight.

I hadn't really thought about hazing laws that apply to adults. Cases where the other people actually hit the person or forcibly pour booze down their throat, etc.. are more clear and can be covered with other laws having nothing to do with "hazing" in particular. But, laws that explicitly target "hazing" during initiation where the person chooses to do something to themselves that might harm them seem problematic and lacking sound principles and coherence with other laws.

On what basis is an adult choosing to do things that might cause them harm in exchange for being part of an organization more criminal than an adult doing those same things in exchange for a paycheck? Yet, people can be paid to do all kinds of stupid things to themselves for money, including the equivalent of dogfighting (boxing, MMA) or other countless physically harmful, potentially humiliating acts from many pro sports to circus acts, daredevil stunts, the nonsense David Blane does, and even dangerously excessive consumption etc.. While some of these cannot be done out in public without formal permission and licensing, they are not illegal in themselves.

That's probably why there is no consistency in hazing laws and many states don't really have any or only apply them when a person has been seriously injured or killed. If the same people did the same things under the guise of a corporation where the hazees signed formal consent documents it wouldn't be a crime to film people doing those same dangerous things to themselves. In fact, if bunch of friends merely cheer while someone does those same things to themselves just for social media glory and not an initiation, then it isn't a crime. So, what is so magical about initiations that the same acts should be criminal?

Anyway, the elimination of the job of grid girl at F1 races isn't a ban on looking at pretty girls in skimpy outfits, so let's not get all Chicken Little about it.

Agreed. Decisions not to do something are not at all the same as laws that say no one can do something. However, actually legal bans against a consensual activity on the grounds that it is "detrimental to society" are something we should get all chicken little about, even if we don't personally like the activity, because that criteria is too vague and indirect and thus can and will be used to ban things that are only "harmful" to some people's ideology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As with most things, there's a pragmatic solution that arguably represents a good, win-win compromise all round.

If you're watching F1 on tv or at the event itself, and you wish there were grid girls, simply use some sort of hand-held device to log on to a suitable sexy pics website. That way, you can still get to watch the race and hot women at the same time. Problem solved, surely.

Excellent suggestion.

And Derec clearly has plenty of 'grid girl' photos saved on his computer, so he is all set.

I don't think you'll see grid girls in an F1 race unless you are there. It isn't like they are standing on the grid or in a pit during the race. So Derec is being denied nothing.

 

[RavenSky]

You have the right idea, but your pragmatic solution does not require to change the grid girl system, so why not keep it?

From your link:
" The grid girl concept is a controversial one and was scrapped altogether by the World Endurance Championship at the start of the 2015 season. At the time, series CEO Gerard Neveu said: 'For me, that is the past. The condition of women is a little bit different now.' "
http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/12948330/sebastian-vettel-monaco-grid-boys-point

Now, you may disagree with him, and many others may disagree with him, but that is one of the whys for many people.

I suspect that the main reason for dropping grid girls is commercial. Women fans currently make up 40% of the audience and the organisers are keen to appeal to the untapped part of the market, including attracting sponsorship and advertising from companies selling to women and companies who don't necessarily want to be seen to be behind the times on gender issues.

Michel Boeri (who instigated the grid boys in your link) and Gerard Neveu both probably have their heads screwed on and their financial priorities to the forefront.

It's worth noting that F1 lost one-third of its global audience between 2008 and 2016. It is reported that young people especially are not getting involved so much. TV viewing figures have reportedly dropped by 40 per cent among the under-25's in the USA since 2000.

They may be gambling that they will, in the long run, win more fans (and thereby money to keep the sport going) than they will lose.

It's true that declining viewing figures is not just a problem for motor sports, especially since the rise of the internet and the economic downturn after 2007, and it's also true that some of the decline is down to motor sport moving (in some countries) from free-to-view to pay channels, but it still means motor sport is trying to up its appeal.

The other hidden factor (as regards the general appeal of the sport), imo, might be that gas-guzzling machines are not seen as universally cool and classy as they used to be, given that in the world outside motor sport, they are increasingly seen as contributing to adverse climate change and choking up the air we breathe, and that issue has been on the rise and likely to continue to become more prominent in the future.

F1 can't afford to risk being a declining brand in the future.

cr;jq - good post

 

[bilby]

Back in the '70s and '80s, there was a HUGE demand for images of scantily clad women, that was largely left unsatisfied due to the difficulty and/or expense of obtaining pornography, and the social stigma of doing so. A number of commercial ventures capitalized on this, including motor sport; Grid Girls, Pirelli Calendars and similar forms of soft titillation (pun intended) arose to fill the void - having a bit of tottie on display was a sound business decision, attracting lots of customers to your brand or event.

Today, any person with an Internet connection (ie almost anyone in the entire developed world, and certainly the VAST majority of people with disposable incomes) has access to more pornographic images free of charge than they could possibly look at if they spent their entire life in pursuit of such things. As a result, the draw of such images is much reduced - while their potential to repulse those who do not wish to see scantily clad women (either through prudishness, sexual preference, or any other reason) remains unchanged.

As a result of this changing balance between customers who have a desire to see scantily clad women, and customers who desire NOT to see them, it has become a more sensible marketing strategy not to have them. This is the opposite of puritanism; It is the acceptance that the puritanical 'fun police' have been so completely and totally routed that there is no longer a strong market for events that bypass their restrictions.

Grid Girls have to go, not because people don't want to see sexy women anymore, but because they no longer have to go to a Formula 1 track to see them - they can do it from the comfort of their own homes. So they no longer boost sales. This is the free market at work.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It seems feminism has liberated women to the point where they can only take jobs that feminism approves of.

 

[Derec]

Back in the '70s and '80s, there was a HUGE demand for images of scantily clad women, that was largely left unsatisfied due to the difficulty and/or expense of obtaining pornography, and the social stigma of doing so. A number of commercial ventures capitalized on this, including motor sport; Grid Girls, Pirelli Calendars and similar forms of soft titillation (pun intended) arose to fill the void - having a bit of tottie on display was a sound business decision, attracting lots of customers to your brand or event.

Today, any person with an Internet connection (ie almost anyone in the entire developed world, and certainly the VAST majority of people with disposable incomes) has access to more pornographic images free of charge than they could possibly look at if they spent their entire life in pursuit of such things. As a result, the draw of such images is much reduced - while their potential to repulse those who do not wish to see scantily clad women (either through prudishness, sexual preference, or any other reason) remains unchanged.

Nice hypothesis, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Ubiquitous access to hardcore pornography does not mean there is any less interest in having good-looking women in non-pornographic entertainment or advertising. If anything, it has driven mainstream popular culture to be more risque. So why should (motor)sport have to become more chaste, more prudish, more G-rated?

As a result of this changing balance between customers who have a desire to see scantily clad women, and customers who desire NOT to see them, it has become a more sensible marketing strategy not to have them.

I have seen zero evidence that customers who desire to see grid girls are outnumbered by those who desire not to see them. The reactions by F1 fans to the move have been overwhelmingly negative. The only ones I have seen applaud the move are feminist moralizers. And I doubt too many of them would be caught dead at a racetrack anyway.

This is the opposite of puritanism; It is the acceptance that the puritanical 'fun police' have been so completely and totally routed that there is no longer a strong market for events that bypass their restrictions.

Make no mistake, those who are against grid girls are also against porn, or pretty scantly-clad women in ads. But your thesis does not explain why there are plenty of tits on Game of Thrones (or any other HBO production) when you can have hardcore porn via Pornhub even easier than accessing HBO. If you were right, GoT etc. would be G-rated with respect to sex and nudity.

Grid Girls have to go,

Wrong. There was no necessity in axing the grid girls. It was a decision by ironically named Liberty Media Group.

not because people don't want to see sexy women anymore, but because they no longer have to go to a Formula 1 track to see them - they can do it from the comfort of their own homes. So they no longer boost sales. This is the free market at work.

They never had to go to a Formula 1 track to see good looking women. Even in the 70s it was not the easiest or most cost-effective way. But it's a nice addition to the race weekend and there is really no good reason to change it. Other than overabundance of political correctness and caving to the loud minority of moralizers. Not free market, as vast majority of F1 fans or even potential F1 fans either like the grid girls or at least do not mind them. The only ones who have come out in support of the decision, both male and female, have been the types who are very unlikely to support as capitalist a sport as Formula 1.

 

[Derec]

I don't think you'll see grid girls in an F1 race unless you are there. It isn't like they are standing on the grid or in a pit during the race. So Derec is being denied nothing.

You see them on TV, obviously, both before the race at the grid and after, at the podium.

 

[Derec]

Have you ever in your adult life had a conversation with a woman that is not part of some sort of transaction, not with a barista or the lady at the DMV?

Of course. Quite often.

You seem to live a life where women are like a different species to you.

On the contrary. To me it seems that radical feminists views women like a different species whose members cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves, and so their choices must be restricted by what the likes of Julie Bindel or Gail Dines deem appropriate.

 

[laughing dog]

I have seen zero evidence that customers who desire to see grid girls are outnumbered by those who desire not to see them.

Apparently the people who run F1 have seen sufficient evidence to make a business decision that they expect will increase their viewership and increase their revenue. Of course, they may be wrong.

On the otherhand, all you have is your cherry-picked data from non-random samples coupled with your moralizing outrage. Of course, you may be wrong.

Now, if the people in charge of this in F1 make a mistake, it will cost them. If you are making a mistake, it costs you nothing.

Now, without knowing anything about the actual decision being discusses, who is more likely to be more careful in collecting and analyzing information in coming to a conclusion - the people in F1 or you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have seen zero evidence that customers who desire to see grid girls are outnumbered by those who desire not to see them.

Apparently the people who run F1 have seen sufficient evidence to make a business decision that they expect will increase their viewership and increase their revenue. Of course, they may be wrong.

On the otherhand, all you have is your cherry-picked data from non-random samples coupled with your moralizing outrage. Of course, you may be wrong.

Now, if the people in charge of this in F1 make a mistake, it will cost them. If you are making a mistake, it costs you nothing.

Now, without knowing anything about the actual decision being discusses, who is more likely to be more careful in collecting and analyzing information in coming to a conclusion - the people in F1 or you?

You're missing the issue.

I do agree they obviously feel it's in their interest to make the change but that doesn't mean the grid girls were bad for viewership. It could be the PR benefit of banning them is worth more than the loss from removing the eye candy.

 

[laughing dog]

I have seen zero evidence that customers who desire to see grid girls are outnumbered by those who desire not to see them.

Apparently the people who run F1 have seen sufficient evidence to make a business decision that they expect will increase their viewership and increase their revenue. Of course, they may be wrong.

On the otherhand, all you have is your cherry-picked data from non-random samples coupled with your moralizing outrage. Of course, you may be wrong.

Now, if the people in charge of this in F1 make a mistake, it will cost them. If you are making a mistake, it costs you nothing.

Now, without knowing anything about the actual decision being discusses, who is more likely to be more careful in collecting and analyzing information in coming to a conclusion - the people in F1 or you?

You're missing the issue.

I do agree they obviously feel it's in their interest to make the change but that doesn't mean the grid girls were bad for viewership. It could be the PR benefit of banning them is worth more than the loss from removing the eye candy.

Since viewership is done, it seems you are missing the issue. Are you claiming that viewership is not tied to PR? Look at this way. The loss in possible in viewership from not having grid girls is probably small (at least in their view) while the increase in viewership is probably larger. This is about money.

As an aside, any sport that requires scantily clad people on the sidelines to attract viewers and fans is going to die sooner rather than later.

 

[Malintent]

Back in the '70s and '80s, there was a HUGE demand for images of scantily clad women, that was largely left unsatisfied due to the difficulty and/or expense of obtaining pornography, and the social stigma of doing so. A number of commercial ventures capitalized on this, including motor sport; Grid Girls, Pirelli Calendars and similar forms of soft titillation (pun intended) arose to fill the void - having a bit of tottie on display was a sound business decision, attracting lots of customers to your brand or event.

Today, any person with an Internet connection (ie almost anyone in the entire developed world, and certainly the VAST majority of people with disposable incomes) has access to more pornographic images free of charge than they could possibly look at if they spent their entire life in pursuit of such things. As a result, the draw of such images is much reduced - while their potential to repulse those who do not wish to see scantily clad women (either through prudishness, sexual preference, or any other reason) remains unchanged.

As a result of this changing balance between customers who have a desire to see scantily clad women, and customers who desire NOT to see them, it has become a more sensible marketing strategy not to have them. This is the opposite of puritanism; It is the acceptance that the puritanical 'fun police' have been so completely and totally routed that there is no longer a strong market for events that bypass their restrictions.

Grid Girls have to go, not because people don't want to see sexy women anymore, but because they no longer have to go to a Formula 1 track to see them - they can do it from the comfort of their own homes. So they no longer boost sales. This is the free market at work.

Exactly.

If Grid Girls boosted sales then the business would say that people want them and it is not sexist. and the Grid Girls are so happy.
Since Grid Girls apparently HARM sales (at least, don't help), they get rid of them (their cost and overhead that returns nothing to the business in terms of bottom line), and take advantage of any political or social element to try and look good doing it.

 

[bilby]

Back in the '70s and '80s, there was a HUGE demand for images of scantily clad women, that was largely left unsatisfied due to the difficulty and/or expense of obtaining pornography, and the social stigma of doing so. A number of commercial ventures capitalized on this, including motor sport; Grid Girls, Pirelli Calendars and similar forms of soft titillation (pun intended) arose to fill the void - having a bit of tottie on display was a sound business decision, attracting lots of customers to your brand or event.

Today, any person with an Internet connection (ie almost anyone in the entire developed world, and certainly the VAST majority of people with disposable incomes) has access to more pornographic images free of charge than they could possibly look at if they spent their entire life in pursuit of such things. As a result, the draw of such images is much reduced - while their potential to repulse those who do not wish to see scantily clad women (either through prudishness, sexual preference, or any other reason) remains unchanged.

As a result of this changing balance between customers who have a desire to see scantily clad women, and customers who desire NOT to see them, it has become a more sensible marketing strategy not to have them. This is the opposite of puritanism; It is the acceptance that the puritanical 'fun police' have been so completely and totally routed that there is no longer a strong market for events that bypass their restrictions.

Grid Girls have to go, not because people don't want to see sexy women anymore, but because they no longer have to go to a Formula 1 track to see them - they can do it from the comfort of their own homes. So they no longer boost sales. This is the free market at work.

Exactly.

If Grid Girls boosted sales then the business would say that people want them and it is not sexist. and the Grid Girls are so happy.
Since Grid Girls apparently HARM sales (at least, don't help), they get rid of them (their cost and overhead that returns nothing to the business in terms of bottom line), and take advantage of any political or social element to try and look good doing it.

Looking good doing things is worth quite a bit of money to most businesses (particularly those who sell their product directly to the masses). That's the only reason they bother to worry about whether or not what they do looks good.

 

[Derec]

Looking good doing things is worth quite a bit of money to most businesses (particularly those who sell their product directly to the masses). That's the only reason they bother to worry about whether or not what they do looks good.

Grid girls look good. Radical feminist virtue signalling does not look good except to radical feminists and they tend not to be racing fans anyway.

The season is a few races old, and the "grid kids" idea looks predictably stupid. They don't even do anything. Just stand around.
But not all is lost!
Grid girls may not be gone from F1 just yet
I think the rest of the race tracks should follow Monaco and Sochi's lead. Grid girls instead of grid kindergarten!

 

[Derec]

Since Grid Girls apparently HARM sales (at least, don't help),

Evidence?

they get rid of them (their cost and overhead

Their cost was infinitesimal compared to cost of Formula 1 as a whole. And besides, grid kids have costs too.

that returns nothing to the business in terms of bottom line), and take advantage of any political or social element to try and look good doing it.

The only reason Liberty(ironic name) Media got rid of grid girls is virtue signalling. It's a hare-brained idea on par with halos and making cars wider and even more aerodynamically sensitive. Because two biggest problems in the Formula 1 is lack of appeal to radical feminists and too much overtaking!

 

[laughing dog]

The only reason Liberty(ironic name) Media got rid of grid girls is virtue signalling.

Is this an opinion or fact? Produce the evidence that suggests there was one and only reason, and that reason was virtue signalling.

 

[Toni]

I'm glad it's censored. That pond does not look clean enough to be either swimming or bathing in and likely contains all manner of bacterial infections. The image of a dozen young nymphs shitting themselves with diarrhea is not something that's appropriate for public viewing.

It would be Protozoa, not bacteria.