Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Stupid, Stupid NFL Network | Can't We All Just Get Along? »

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Shit’s in the PI

posted by on November 29 at 14:40 PM

What Seattlest said, and more. This piece would be bad enough if the PI dedicated more than a tiny fraction of its sports section to women athletes, but in context? Revolting.

RSS icon Comments

1

Ok, creepy.

Posted by Gloria | November 29, 2007 2:51 PM
2

That picture of her in the pink is pretty creepy too. She looks like an emaciated pre-teen.

Posted by Hal | November 29, 2007 2:53 PM
3

That is a pretty poorly written article.

Also, when can we stop having to put in our email address to post here?

Posted by Erik | November 29, 2007 2:58 PM
4

Women who complain about women who get compliments on their appearance are usually homely/unattractive/fugly or believe themselves to be so. They secretly, or not so secretly want someone to pay attention to them in the same way, or sometimes, in a more overtly sexual way.

Ain't nothing changed since the dawn of time. It ain't goin' anywheres.

Incidentally, women are pretty gross...

Posted by ecce homo | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
5

Women with overly visible clivicle bones are gross, fo' sure...

Posted by Hal | November 29, 2007 3:07 PM
6

Ooops... Supposed to read clavicle.

Posted by Hal | November 29, 2007 3:08 PM
7

@3 - uh...no, dude. Annie's right on this one. This should not have passed for a "sports" article at all. In context, it is definitely derogatory. (And yes, I do think she's pretty damn hot.)

Posted by Hernandez | November 29, 2007 3:09 PM
8

@7:
Pedophile!

Posted by Dodo | November 29, 2007 3:12 PM
9

@4-Annie Wagner is a hottie. No shit.

Posted by Samson | November 29, 2007 3:14 PM
10

Her outstretched arms flow apart, the right cocking behind her head, the left sweeping forward toward the target.

And then ... FWAAAAAP!

Posted by JC | November 29, 2007 3:15 PM
11

Very stalkerish writing. Even if she's hot.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 29, 2007 3:17 PM
12

Golly.

Posted by infrequent | November 29, 2007 3:17 PM
13

She's no Allison Stokke, that's for sure.

Posted by Jason Josephes | November 29, 2007 3:22 PM
14

College sports exist so that vampiric old alumni can slobber on the young. If everybody told the truth about that we'd start paying college athletes the money they deserve and stop making them go to class.

Posted by elenchos | November 29, 2007 3:25 PM
15

@4: I don't think it's a complaint against her hotness. It's the fact that her hotness seems to be (a good chunk of) the reason why she was written about in the first place.

You don't get that shit when they're writing about a hot male athlete.

Posted by ew | November 29, 2007 3:26 PM
16

@4: Also, you're a dick.

Posted by ew | November 29, 2007 3:27 PM
17

Is this article more revolting than any of the hundreds pieces done on Anna Kournikova, Maria Sharipova, Summer Sanders, Gabriella Reece, etc? There’s a long tradition of male sports writers acknowledging, even highlighting, the physical appearance of women athletes in the context of their athletic achievements (or lack thereof in the case of Kournikova).

Besides, if you follow Husky sports (and Ted Miller certainly does) Christal’s looks have been a topic of conversation ever since she arrived on campus. She was even singled out by the sports gossip website “With Leather” as one of the hottest female athletes. (Although, they knocked her down a few pegs because, according to her then public Facebook page, she’s a huge bible thumper and is supposedly saving herself for marriage.)

In any event, this has been going on for decades. That doesn’t make it right but the outrage over Miller’s fairly mild column is sort of silly.

Posted by Ryan | November 29, 2007 3:31 PM
18

Poorly written, poorly thought-out article. And pretty chauvinistic to boot. Awesome. "Look at the cute female athlete! Isn't she pretty? And cute and athletic and stuff! Did I mention pretty?"

Posted by Greg | November 29, 2007 3:35 PM
19

I like the patronizing tone the columnist takes on her career choice at the end there.

#4 - How is it the phrase "Looks can be deceiving" not offensive to attractive women who know they're attractive? But I'm probably just jealous that I don't have mouth-breathing misogynists writing articles about me.

#17 - You are right, but it still makes me :(

Posted by tabletop_joe | November 29, 2007 3:38 PM
20

I think the difference here is that those tennis players Ryan mentions are professional athletes. Many athletes have sex appeal (Nadal, anyone?), but those stories belong in the entertainment section. The sports section should stick with writing about their prowess on the court/field/course etc.

Posted by Chicana | November 29, 2007 3:42 PM
21

The answer, simply, is for the Stranger to start an in-kind column.

OMG Ichiro! I love those Asian boys, and Ichiro's slim figure does not disappoint. Mariners' star outfielder sure uses his assets on -- and off -- the field, raising the Mariners' RBI, and the pulses of plenty of his fans.

Or:

Shaun is so hot, have you ever seen better pecs on a man? This country boy can kiss my grits anytime. Oh, and he sure can receive a pass.

...I think I did a bit too well at that. Ahem.

Posted by K | November 29, 2007 4:03 PM
22

Except, K, that's obviously not an in-kind column.

Posted by Ryan | November 29, 2007 4:05 PM
23

how very, tragically pathetic. i must say i'm not entirely surprised, as sports writing / commentary is easily the most childish, inane, delusionally self-important drivel in journalism. yet another reason to hate fucking sports. HAAAAATE THEM!!

Posted by brandon | November 29, 2007 4:12 PM
24

For years volleyball players have had a sexual edge to them. Female AND male. They're barely clad on the beaches. Like surfers. Big deal.

Posted by DOUG. | November 29, 2007 4:15 PM
25

@24: However, reading a sports "news article" describing how hot, exciting, and generally delicious a female volleyball player is comes across much like reading a description of the author's masturbatory technique. It's gross and inappropriate for a newspaper.

Posted by Greg | November 29, 2007 4:46 PM
26

It's the usual sports feature tripe. Serious sports fans usually flip by it en route to finding actual material to read.

Posted by Gomez | November 29, 2007 4:53 PM
27

@23 - Hey, don't blame sports for some of their idiotic fans. Or journalists. What did volleyball ever do to you?

Posted by tsm | November 29, 2007 4:58 PM
28

@27 - dude, just don't even get me started, alright? DON'T. DO IT.

Posted by brandon | November 29, 2007 5:16 PM
29

Maybe the PI should change the name of the column to "Morning Wood", or is that already the name of Jim Moore's column?

Posted by left coast | November 29, 2007 5:26 PM
30

the most unfortunate thing about that unfortunate article is that no one is talking about how she's a damn fine athlete. come on out and see her tomorrow night as UW knocks Missouri out of the NCAAs.

Posted by brice | November 29, 2007 6:45 PM
31

You won't get hired there. Even if you grow up in 5 years: if it's still there, they won't hire you. No major daily hires scrubs from the Springfield Shopper, even if the Springfield Shopper lets their staffers smoke pot and work around the clock for the same money as an 8-hour shift. You Strangers: you're so gullible! (And so cheap to hire!)

Posted by Aphoo | November 29, 2007 8:46 PM
32

Ted, show me your tits.

Posted by WenG | November 29, 2007 11:26 PM
33

Oh for fuck's sake. Charles Mudede posts post after creepy incomprehensible post on Slog featuring pictures of beautiful women and you guys never call him on it. No one at The Stranger says "Jesus H. Titty-fucking Christ Charles! Put down the bong and enough with your incomprehensible and masturbatory rantings about these women!" but the PI publishes a spoogefest over one female athlete and all of a sudden your panties get wound up nice and tight in your crack.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | November 30, 2007 1:53 PM
34

@33: The forum in which it's presented makes a difference, yes? Also, Charles often has more to say than just, "Look at this hot piece of ass." It may be incomprehensible, sometimes, but never as creepy as this.

Posted by Greg | November 30, 2007 4:13 PM
35

Go complain about the article where it might do a little bit of good:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=341546

Not here where sloggers will just tell you, "shit has happened before, I don't know why you're complaining now" or even better "I don't know why he talked about her being pretty -- I wouldn't fuck her."

Posted by sherrold | November 30, 2007 5:23 PM
36

czyk avigt iknwxldc okvxsn mudbgp baochmjx exzp

Posted by cevkpg uglsjqb | December 11, 2007 2:05 PM
37

kmnsfr jkyaou zkvahe tcnqlkpw nodteaj uhfmrcq pnebqwt http://www.eomygnxz.inutzdgke.com

Posted by hitzsxy loqpbw | December 11, 2007 2:06 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).