Boob-gate (nsfw)

Manto, FightChix, Fightergirls, and other companies too numerous to list make money, in part, by using images of women grapplers, women MMA fighters, and female athletes generally in their advertising.

This is something I have no problem with.

They even make money off of gorgeous-looking, sexually-appealing women in skimpy clothing and suggestive poses. I have no problem with that, either.  I wish there were more ads featuring rippling male abs, bulging male biceps, and taut male bums, for that matter.

What I have a problem with is advertising that sexualizes training or competition for men or women, or ads that demean women generally.  So when Manto posted a Bardot-lookalike and a Loren-lookalike play-fighting, foreplaying, and snuggling---

--- I was turned off of Manto forever.  That photospread caused a fair bit of controversy after they posted that picture on their facebook page and tweeted it as well.  It's published in a Polish men's magazine.  In the English tweet, it was subtitled something about "two girls fighting over a Manto t-shirt" and said something about "breast control."

Logic, people-- they're both wearing the same Manto t-shirt.

Oh that's right, you're not supposed to look at the t-shirt.

My good friend Mark helpfully translated the bottom line of text from Polish, which reads ""the moments of breath in the bedroom."   Hmm.

Comments by Manto and an owner thereof, Alberto Marchetti, included:

"The 'mma themed' photoshoot was organized by one of mainstream's [sic] men's magazines for which [sic] we were asked to provide gear and mat space. We had no creative control over the photoshoot."

"I wouldn't have apologized, the photo shoot is not intended for women, it's for men. Men don't need to apologize because they like sexy women! It's the 21st century! If women's skin offends u too bad for you!"

 "In my opinion women are portrayed in the media the way they want to be portrayed. There are publications that talk about successful business women just as there are ones that talk about the sex appeal women have on men, but then again how many women do you see buying Business Week at the news stand? They have a choice, no one is forcing them, $5 in their pockets, but which magazine will they buy to read on the plane?"

I found this pretty appalling and said so on my facebook wall and in comments on Manto's.  I was so proud that apparently many men, as well as women, agreed with me.   

Other companies have found a way to use sexy babes without sexualizing our training.  Here's an example-- FightChix.  Granted, I hate their silhouette image -- c'mon, do anyone's boobs point up at the ceiling like that?? and no, I mean on the shirt, not in it...  But even though this is a very sexualized image, it does not include sexualized training or competing.  It's just a sexy girl, standing up in a tshirt, in what may be a hotel lobby.  Whatevs.

In an apparent attempt at countering the sexy imagery, FightChix's subtitle on their website is "Empowering Women Worldwide."  I'm not sure how empowered I'd feel walking around with this phrase hovering over my derriere...

But as far as the visual images go, I have no problem with even the sexiest of FightChix's photography.  It doesn't make it look like you're supposed to be ready for sex while training.  While it clearly appeals to the "fighter's babe" more than the "babe who is a fighter," at least in my opinion, sometimes fighters started out as fighter's babes!  And we're all worthy of respect.
That, however, is why I do have a problem with some of their logos and slogans.  WTF?!  Trust No Bitch?  Shame on you, FightChix.  I am joining Abby in my expression of distaste and my boycott of the brand.

Fightergirls, a company started by fighter Debi Purcell, uses hot sexy women in its photos, but it's hard to find a suggestive pose on their website.  This is about as sexual as they get, advertising their capris.  She's tough, though feminine.  She can clearly handle herself.  She doesn't need to show her lady parts, and she has better abs than most.  Double thumbs up.

E-zine Jezebel covered the controversy and found Manto's "mansplanations" bizarre.  Megan blogged about it over on Tangled Triangle.  In fact, I first noticed Manto's crap because MegJitsu posted about it.

So what's the difference?  Women who train can be sexy, sensual, desireable creatures, but when we train, just like men, we're not there for sex.  We are there to learn, to kick ass, to progress, to do a million and one things depending on our goals for the sport and for the day-- but we're not there to get laid.  So WTF with the boob control, Manto?

It pisses me off that dumb knuckledraggers (every academy seems to have, or have had, at least one) look at the Manto pictures and say "how come we don't have those girls at my school?"  I mean really.

Number one, if that blonde came to your school, she wouldn't be dressed like that, she wouldn't be all lushly made up with bedroom hair trailing over a shoulder.  She'd be there for self-defense or learning a new skill, she'd come wearing clothing that fully covered her physique, and she wouldn't be HAPPY if you demonstrated back mount with a handful of her tit.

Number two, I bet there ARE girls (or at least one girl) at most of these guys' schools.  And they come in, do their business, make friends, and go back to their lives.  By saying you wish Miss Bardot was at your school, you're insulting the ladies who are there.  What, you need to have a buffet of sexy babes to make your school better?  Why does that make your training better?  Are you some kind of Playgirl centerfold?  Maybe you should worry about making your school better by being a better training partner first!

Number three, sex should not be used to influence and shape the image of the women that are engaged in a mostly-male sport. It's annoying and demeaning, not in the least because there will always be boneheads who turn to the (lone?) lady in their academy, utter a Beavis/Butthead laugh, and say something about breast control (or whatever the wording was.) They are already stupid, but gain bravery to express that stupidity from all the clowns defending the Manto pictures as "funny," "normal sex drive," "sex sells," or it's "justified because there are women who hook up with guys in their academy," etc. ad nauseum.

A later explication by Meg so fully and perfectly summarizes how I feel about this, that I am just going to quote her:

" Of course sexualised images of women and men are currency across many sectors and are ogled for pleasure and fun by men and women. What concerned me in this particular case, was the broadcast of such a sexualised portrayal of female grapplers as a public communication by a brand which, in part, markets grappling kit to women. 

As an aspect of brand identity, this was not acceptable to me. For me, as a grappler and consumer, I want to support brands with my hard-earned dosh that emphasise the skillfullness of grapplers (male and female) and positively reinforce respect for athleticism and hard-won skill and technical abilities on the part of practitioners. 

I believe it is clear I am not the only person, female or male, that agrees with this. Others may not, that's fine. A brand can manage its identity as it sees fit, also fine. But as a consumer, it is also fine that I position myself in relation to any particular brand's identity. The emphasis on a sexualised portrayal of female grapplers pitched at a certain male gaze in that public communication is not the sort of brand identity I want to associate with. So I, and others, let Manto know that was the case. . . . 

Essentially, nipples and boobies in principle don't freak me out . . . and I think women's bodies are rather glorious. However, for me, that does not translate to into a willingness to hang with a brand that uses such a sexualised portrayal of female grappling in its brand-building. Doesn't mean others shouldn't or can't and clearly any brand can manage its identity as it sees fit, but equally a brand doesn't exist apart from its community of customers, a community which may include many perspectives, and a brand can reasonably expect to lose custom, just as it may attract custom, through its chosen identity. That's the market at work."

I agree with Meg completely.  I haven't ever purchased (or reviewed for free) material from Manto, and I promise, I won't be sending my hard-earned "dosh" their way, ever.  Nor will I use my precious time to review their stuff.  Manto is off my list, forever.  Not that they care.  

But I want to steer you towards a new company out there that I can get behind.  Fluffy Lamb Fightwear.  Seriously-- they have cute stuff.  I bought some at the last UFC Fan Expo in Houston and I've been wearing it since.  Instead of skulls, barbed wire, gargoyles and boobalicious babes, they have a frowning sheep as mascot.  The kids' designs lack the tongue-in-cheek flirty bylines present on the adult versions, but neither is anything approaching rated-R much less X.  The whole story is posted on their website, starting with an expedition in Nepal, but here's the short version:


"While most companies sell MMA apparel with the intent of being 'bad' or 'menacing', Fluffy Lamb takes a different approach. We think the toughness doesn't always have to come in a package adorned with skulls and aggressive messaging.  Enjoy the irony of the Fluffy Lamb!"

Here's a couple of the designs they sell on their website.  I have the pink "no petting allowed" one and another not shown here.  I love the material which is very soft and stretchy; I got a medium and it's a nice fit, babydoll in style but not overly tight or too short.  It also doesn't get distorted or twisted in the wash/dry process, like some cheap shirts.

So, that's my rant of the week.  Sorry it took a while to post-- I was out of town and insanely busy for work.

I'll be in NYC next week for a week of family time and training and hopefully not too much eating.  I plan on hitting Marcelo's, of course, looking forward to meeting Emily, seeing Marcelo again (I'm bringing those brownies!) and seeing Jamie and Kamjohn, and Matt Serra's to visit my bud Mike D., and if you think I should try for any other academies while I'm there, pipe up! :)