Budo Girls Website

I don't know if we have every discussed this Website. It seems to be pretty interesting mixture of Judo, Karate, BJJ, Muay Thai. All the techniques performed by the Ladies for the Ladies.

Plus a little eye candy for the guys.

Train Hard, Stay Safe,
Good Luck

I want to be armbared by them

Suuuuure...

Yes, we have discussed it here many times before. I discovered the site a long time ago ... when I was doing reserach.

CK-to-English Dictionary:

CK Term: "Doing Research"

English interpretation: "Searching the web for pictures of hot chicks in gi".

Dino

I was excited to see a website dedicated to women's martial arts, and then I saw the photos of the women in suggestive poses and little in the way of clothing. This is not a site for "the ladies" it's another site for the guys to enjoy. Another way for men to see women as sex objects instead of people, and another way they can not take us seriously as martial artists. So sad.

Why would being considered as a sex object be exclusive to being taken seriously as a martial art ? I do not believe that most men look at beautiful women as as sex objects irrespective of what they do; they will likely look at them as "sex subjects", which is quite normal as a member of the opposite sex who is healthy. I regularly see women looking at soccer players etc, expressing similar giggling and interest. I do not dispute that there are people out there for whom objectification is their only course, but I do not believe that applies to most people.

And by the way, my wife loves watching porn, is very educated, very much in support of womens' causes, and usually attracted to the same women as I am.

I think, as a woman who does budo, that women doing budo are sexy. I don't think I need poses or skimpy outfits to be sexy -- I think I'm sexy wiping the sweat from my face after uchikomi, or turning in for morote seoinage. I think I'm especially sexy when I'm wielding a 2 meter long pole arm.

But even if you (hypothetically) think I'm sexy, for the sake of our practice, you'd better keep it to yourself.

There's a difference between public lust and private lust. If that women's soccer team included a single guy, he might get very uncomfortable to see that giggling. For the sake of harmony within the group, the group members should keep these behaviors private. I'm a member of several martial arts forums across multiple disciplines, and I'm sad to say this type of "hey, look at the sexy girl, wouldn't I love to do keiko with her" is very common. It makes for a very unwelcome environment for women. I can't post pictures or video clips to ask for help with technique because there's a high likelihood there will some sort of innuendo-laden response. I won't just be judged on my skill, but on my suitability as a sex partner. Sure, guys might get a wolf whistle or giggle out in the anonymous public, but a guy posting something to a martial arts community generally doesn't have these worries.

Here are two women and judoka in the thread now saying they find the linked site and discussion troublesome. One can continue behavior they have been told makes minority members of the group uncomfortable -- and as a member of the majority class tell those people they are wrong for feeling as they do -- or one can examine the behavior with an open heart.

Or, the intarwebs being what they are, one can tank up the flamethrower.

If I was a betting gal, I'd put my money on the last.

-B

Of course, and you have all right to feel at ease in a comfortable environment. The issues that you raise, go much further than gender issues. The involve cultural issues, but most of all they involve individual issues. For example, Kyra Gracie is a well-known and capable martial artist who is appreciated for her skill but who also consciously chooses to pose in skimpy outfits; not that she 'needs to' in order to be sexy, but she does; not even that needing to be sexy is a requirement on this forum, but she chooses that too. So, there is an indivdual issue. We regularly have individual clashes on the forum, and that is no surprise, given the wide difference in political opinions and cultural background. I think in reality, what you can reasonably expect is ... you have made your wishes clear; you can spell out what you want or not want, and there is a reasonable chance for people to adhere to that; if they don't then there are two options, repeat it again or change the environment. I am not trying at all to make you gullible at all. What I am saying is that sometimes we find ourselves in a hostile environment. The options that are open then are to battle that environment or to seek another environment. I think that battling an environment is reasonable if it has a reasonable chance of a changed outcome.

I do not think that this forum is either women unfriendly, or racist, anti-religious or pro-religious, or republican or democrat. I think that there are many individuals with many opinions and in debates some people come across as more moderate and some as more extreme. You will find that everywhere.

I do not think that people are guided by a principle such as harmony within a group; some might and some might not be. What you describe is more determined by cultural values and your individual social upbringing and later developed individual values and views. I do not think either that making someone or getting uncomfortable is per definition bad. I think that it is 'reasonable' to take into account the wishes of the other, but I do not think it is absolute. I make my students uncomfortable all of the time, and intentionally take them out of their comfort zone. I find that justified although none of them asks for it or likely desires it.

I do not doubt that that indeed you may often be confronted with the type of "hey, look at the sexy girl, wouldn't I love to do keiko with her" comments, and I do not doubt that that it makes you feel sad or even offended. The question is what you do with that. I think that the American society is extremely conditions to "feeling offended", but nonetheless, if one is brought up in that society that one is a child of that society with one's perceptions and expectations. Unfortunately this, nor the Internet is still an American environment, and thus the collision of people who feel entirely different is very realistic. Striking a balance is going to be a challenge in particular since the Internet is just a virtual environment. Per those considerations, I do not agree that it makes for a very unwelcome environment for women. I do agree that it makes for a very unwelcome environment for some women, and i do not deny that such group may be substantial. In practical life, we have people we respect and people we like or the opposite. We seek the company of those we like and appreciate and we avoid those we don't. In a virtual society like the Internet that works a lot less effective, though i do think that open discussions such as these do serve a purpose in increasing mutual understanding. At the end of the day, I do not know you and you do not know me, and we can each put the forum on ignore each other. To me this seems a far easier solution than in real life.

I do not think it is a matter of "Here are two women and judoka in the thread now saying they find the linked site and discussion troublesome. One can continue behavior they have been told makes minority members of the group uncomfortable -- and as a member of the majority class tell those people they are wrong for feeling as they do -- or one can examine the behavior with an open heart." (...)

I have been involved taught various minority and diversity-related workshops, and I really do not think that anyone questions that minority members might feel uncomfortable. I think that per definition that is one of the reasons as to why precisely things usually evolve the way the majority wants irrespective or right or wrong. I think that to establish right and wrong it usually helps if one can demonstrate the universality of that wrongness, and that is where the problem lies precisely because some very well known women and martial artists feel differently. That makes the issue no longer a class action issue, but an individual issue, and one of the many individual different views, opinions and emotions.

I think that as a female who feels offended by specific views that deciding to enter a room or Internet thread which seems populated mainly by males holding different views that it creates an odd dynamic. You then, perhaps legitimately, that is not the point, question their activity; I do not think this is any different from a male walking into what clearly is an all-women environment where women are discussing women things. I think that the male wanting to see them chan ge the subject will be giggled out of the room if not worse. The question then becomes one of why knowingly walk into such room ? In this case, the topic seemed to clearly suggest what the thread would be about. You can't decided to walk onto a nudist beach and then complain that you are offended by nakedness. You may very well be offended by nakedness, but others clearly are not, and these others have clearly labelled their beach and chosen to be there.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the slang expressions used in your last two sentences.

This topic purported to be about a web site for the ladies, but even the original poster referred to them as "eye candy". You can't criticize a woman for objecting to this kind of characterization, or claim that they shouldn't visit such a topic to express an opinion. If this had been a topic with a title "Look at the sexy women in suggestive poses" then you would have an argument that maybe it was clearly identified as a lurid topic just for men. Someone should still object though.

I believe this web site is manipulative and is using very young women to attract visitors who are not interested in martial arts as much as the suggestive poses that are on display. It is an embarrassment to budo at least as much as a 10th dan for Jeremy Glick, and I don't think you can find anything in judo history to support this kind of objectification of women. Are women unable to practice judo without being leered at? Is this what we want people to come to our judo classes for?

I think it may actually be a soft-core pornography site for a certain kind of masochistic fetishist.

If you look around the site a bit, there are lots of pics and videos of men groaning in pain while being pinned, kicked, strangled, etc., by young women.

Methinks that this is not innocent promotion of martial arts for young women.

I did not respond to that post as a criticism on this thread. I thought that it was an interesting and well written post, and that clarification or a different view would be appropriate given the international character of this forum. I did nowhere in my post in response to the lady write: "I am criticizing you for objecting to being referred to as eye candy".

At issue is whether it is legitimate for an individual to object as being a victim for a term used to a group of people who have similar characteristics, though the individual clearly does not belong to that group. I did not say that I think it is not legitimate and I did not say it is legitimate. The only thing I am doing is opening up the floor for discussion.

The characteristic of "being women" is of such extremely general character, that the the criterion applies to more than half of the over 6 billion population. Because of this extreme generalization, it is doubtful that a single representative could speak for that group. The question then becomes, is the individual depicted or otherwise referred to on the website budogirls. To the best of my knowledge, she is not, but I may be erring.

Any sense of offense then becomes one by 'association' rather than by truly making the object of that comment.

You may very well be right that the website "is using very young women to attract visitors who are not interested in martial arts as much as the suggestive poses that are on display". I think that you have to be careful with the term 'using'. There is no doubt that some may be 'used', but there is no doubt that some willfully as adults choose to be on there. In that case the term 'used' is tendentious, as it suggests the ... "forceful exploitation against their will", when however, in those cases the correct term would be to ... "provide a forum for" which implies that they "choose to".

You write that ..."I don't think you can find anything in judo history to support this kind of objectification of women." (...) The question becomes if this is truly 'objectification'. Objectification implies that a person has no will of their own and is simply 'used' at the discretion of someone else. This may be true to some. You can not reasonably call Kyra Gracie willfully and intentionally appearing in skimpy outfits on martial arts sites and with references to martial art as 'objectification'. A person willfully choosing to do something as a subject, is per definition in contradiction to the term 'objectification'. What we have is OTHERS who would NEVER want to do that. And that is their good right. When that right is not respected and pressure is exerted that they should submit to that irrespective of their own desire ... then it ... becomes 'objectification'.

I am not convinced that anyone here has expressed such a desire.

The term 'eye candy' is used in reference to that site I belief. The argument becomes if a subject who is not featured on that site can legitimately solely by association to the class group 'women' and 'martial artist' claim violation of her rights.

In a number of cases we commonly accept such does apply, when crimes against humanity are suggested. Featuring a Nazi site saying "Jews should be killed" is accepted as an extrapolation to all people because of their creed. The determining factor in their is that one becomes unwillingly part of a discriminated group irrespective of choice. A person cannot change being Jewish, has no choice, and in such case the argument "just do not log onto the site" is vain as the site calls for irradication of everyone of that group featured or not.

In the case of belonging to one gender, various of those conditions are not met. For example, the term 'eye candy' does not seem to apply to every person who is woman and a martial artist. For example, it is doubtful that the term would be applied to a person who is woman and martial artist but not considered attractive by the person using such words. No such option exists in the Jewish example; you are or are not. If a person is NOT featured on the Budogirls website, and apparently has not been seen live by the author of the word, is it then reasonable for claiming that such qualification would apply to her ? The situation then becomes one of insisting the term applies to you and then objecting against the term used. Just to avoid misinterpretation, I am nowhere saying that it isn't offensive, and I am nowhere saying that the person has no right to object, I am only analyzing the situation and pointing out a thoroughly different dynamic.

The next question brings us to the term 'eye candy' and whether that is offensive. I point out though that the individual did not literally object against this term. The reason I am addressing it is because you use it in your argument. I have to think of person who is homosexual. The medical term for homosexuality, is 'inversion' and a homosexual is medically an 'invert'. The term relies on the physiological basis that we a genital system to procreate, whereas in homosexuals this system is used in a way that procreation is impossible, and only pleasure and objective, while the system is being used in an adapted way different from its physiological role. However, sociologically and cultural-anthropologically, homosexually is defined entirely differently and with different terminology. There is thus little doubt if in a conversation about homosexuality I insist on referring to this 'skill' and 'nature' as 'inversion' that many will consider it offensive, whereas the term IS NOT offensive, but medical, yet may be PERCEIVED that way.

The term 'eye candy' is defined as "something superficially attractive to look at". This definition does indeed suggest a level of objectification. superficiality is implied with thus no further depth or mind or her own being attributed to the individual in the context. It seems to me logical that even for a woman who is attractive and consciously using that physical attraction by her own choice, that it is likely offensive to label has as nothing more than her superficial outside wrapper. Thus it seems to me after careful analysis that you and others have a good argument against the use of the term eye candy to women.

One problem is that we sometimes use words not fully aware of the true meaning. The situation is complicated by certain groups using a word on themselves, which is defined as disparaging, yet insist on using it, whereas another person outside that community using it to a member of the community would be offensive. The word 'dyke' is such a word. Webster's defines the word as "lesbian; often disparaging". Yet, we know some lesbians insist on using it as a reference to themselves. There is little doubt that the word used by a male to the same person will be unavoidably perceived as aggressive and offensive. The US' infamous N-word is another example. The word is sometimes used jokingly by members of the African-American community on fellow members. Rarely offense is caused. Yet, the word is one of the greatest taboos in American English, and use of the word by anyone outside of the community would even amount to a criminal offense. Sociologically, that is understandable given the history of the word, but it is still an interesting phenomenon.

All these cases differ though from the one in discussion here, because in all these cases people irrevocably belong to that community and the term per definition is used on everyone of that community. In the present case though, the term no matter how offensive seems directed to a certain target group different from the individual, and offense -rightfully or wrongfully- is only perceived by chosen association with that target group.

As pointed out before, I am not justifying or approving anything, only analyzing and concluding that because of the different type in dynamic with the other clear offenses, such cases are difficult and likely to re-occur.

While every individual has the right to a safe environment, the 'association' with that other environment is now made on a third platform: the JudoForum. This makes it even more complicated.

You wonder "Are women unable to practice judo without being leered at? Is this what we want people to come to our judo classes for?" (...)

This sounds very reasonable, but in reality is far from being that simple. "Being leered at" may or may not be a sign of objectification. It also may be part of a normal human sociological interaction. The "leering" could be a sign of a predator, but it could as well be a normal first step of an unmarried other person seeking a mate for life, someone he or she intends to marry, start a family with and have kids with under good old Christian tradition. How can you separate the two ? We do not control the environment where this happens. One cannot determine the location and situation under which adults first start their attraction. Neither is it uncommon for that attraction to start first from one partner, while the other one is clueless or at first not interested. The fine line is like in any courtship, when to stop or when it becomes inappropriate. While the lady discusses in her original post "lust in private" versus "lust in public" it is not that simple in reality. Typically you only spend time that allows showing or submitting to lust in private when you already HAVE a relationships with that person. Unless you already have a preceding relationship of trust as friends or good acquaintances you rarely will commit to spending private time prior to a relationship. So, any normal pre-relation dynamic to some extent plays in public, contains public courtship, attraction and lust. While it is very romantic to think in terms of meeting each other in bible school and then buying flowers and holding hands, in reality relationships often start while either being half drunk or under influence of your carnal desires, and this does not apply to just men. It has usually been me having to stop the woman from unzipping my pants than the woman having to stop me from getting my hands under her skirt, inside her blouse or yoroi or whatever she might have been wearing or not. Holding a true dialogue to help appreciate each other necessitates that we truthfully consider all these aspects that play a role in this convoluted dynamic of male/female and eventually same gender interaction.

Maybe a tad degrading, umm .. misleading .. bleh .. trying to find the right adjective .... less than preferable portrayal of martial arts.

I don't quite understand it's purpose. On one hand, it's young women doing martial arts. On the other it's some form of flirtatious website?

It's light pornography for men who get turned on thinking about being beat up or strangled by an 18-year-old girl.

The "budo" stuff is window dressing, like a strip club calling itself "gentleman's entertainment."

It takes all kinds to make a world.

I did not walk on to a nudist beach and complain about nudity. I walked into a website labeled "Judo Forum" and a sub-category titled "Other Martial Arts" and complained about a link to a site featuring what looks like soft porn. If the post and responses were actually about Other Martial Arts I would have said nothing. As the linked site and responses were not on-topic, I made a conscious decision to point out the problems with the expressed opinions.

We practice a close contact sport. It might not bother some women to do matwork with guys who publicly make lewd comments in response to suggestive photos of women in martial arts situations. But I will not practice with a guy who talks about being turned on by it.

Yes, men and women are responding to biology. Biology also would compel us to kill neighbors who compete with us for food. Chimpanzees do it. Is that okay? Our humanity enables us to suppress biological urges which may be counterproductive in certain situations.

And that's all I have to say -- I don't wish that site to get any more visits because of this conversation, and I hope the whole argument becomes quickly outdated. I don't ask for agreement, I just ask for my view to be considered.



My apologies, the slang refers to "flame wars" and getting "flamed" -- hostile and often irrational responses to a differing opinion -- and my expectation that I was going to see at least a little of that. I'm glad the conversation has not turned ugly.

Thank you.

-B

I understand that. I understand and respect that you want to set your borders. The question becomes if one can reasonably expect that others feel they have to set the same borders.

I do not thin think that the site you are referring to is softporn. I think that like JudoSensei has pointed out there is a certain way of manipulation, by editing and selecting mostly moments of selected women (those that do fit a somewhat stereotypical pattern of being considered attractive) in poses or activity that when such activity would not be in the context of budo, would in considerable part of the population be considered "pleasing to the senses". Thus there is undoubtedly manipulation of those images, and in a certain way as JudoSensei points out, if such manipulation takes place without the prior knowledge of those acting in it, then objectification is likely by those responsible for the image. It does not mean that those watching it are necessarily objectifying. If, for examply they feel a desire to learn to better know an individual depicted there, then how can that be considered objectification ?

I agree with your objection against the potential inappropriateness of making lewd comments about someone in an atmosphere where such is considered unprofessional or nondesired. I have not heard 'lewd' comments; The term "eye candy" seems to alude to "pleasing to the eye" and this in a superficial way. I thus can see the comment having an objectifying nature, though not in se, lewd. Being attractive does not in itself suggest carnal activity, although it might facilitate the premise for that.

In terms of responses to biology, you are correct that humans have some sense of regulation of society. Killing is under normal circumstances considered by society as wrong. Yet, society does not completely agree about those circumstances. In the US and China it is considered acceptable to kill criminals under certain circumstances, in Europe it is not. The topic of this thread is far more convoluted. There is clearly no universality of the concerns you raise. It is a problem for some, and not for others. I know both men and women who have visited the site, and I do women who do have no problems with that site. This does not in anyway ease you being hurt, but it is something that I observe and which no doubt is linked to the difficulty in regulating these issues.

If a person clearly chooses to be on pictures exploiting something beyond martial arts, then I do not think it is reasonable to blame someone for being turned on by it; talking about it is something different; it depends on the situation; I am reluctant to say it is per se inappropriate, but I think it is inappropriate in your vicinity if you have made that clear. One cannot reasonably argue that a set of pictures of Kyra Gracie, a known martial artist, in a pink gi, a bra top dripping of sweat is not intended to exploit her sexuality and intentionally cause the provocation of sexual feelings in others. Martial arts are not normally practiced in pink gi, and nor do either man or women practice it while wearing nothing but a bra top. She knows very well that her departure from normalcy has a specific objective. when that objective is reached in her target group, one cannot blame either her or her target group. when you are in a dojo and that pictures is on the wall and a man comments on it in your presence, that may not be the most professional thing to do, but just like Kyra, you cannot reasonably argue that a dojo who would hang up such pictures would not know what they are intended to cause. It then depends very much on how weak the flesh is and even that is not a simple matter of 'behavior'; some people may have happy relationship with a partner, but not everybody has. Imagine a disabled person who has not had intimate relationships for year ... The effect of the poster may have an amplified effect, and I do not think that the person is necessary some lewd offender.

I do sympathize with you. These situations are most unfortunate. I think that they are very complex situations to handle in an adequate way that take into account every potential factor. That is why it seems to me that the easiest solution (perhaps not the fairest, but the 'easiest) is for people to seek an environment which is completely as they would like it to be or to change environments. This is not meant as to shoo people away, more as a concern if it is realistic for an individual to reinvent that entire environment when it turns out the concerns are not shared by everyone.