Do you have an idea why Venus Williams would want to wear this?

My idea would be this: She’s a goddess, and she knows it. Clap your hands.

removed by me, because I’m stupid.

Because that’s about the only think that would get me intently interested in watching a tennis match? And I bet you I am not alone.

I guess she thinks it’s cute. It’s no more skimpy than what a gymnast or figure skater wears.

removed by me, nevermind. I didn’t read the topics.

@tinyfaery
I think it’s cute too, and i agree that the athletes you mentioned wear tight tights too, but these undies that Venus Williams is wearing are obviously designed to look like she is walking is her nekkid behind.

@poofandmook
I am aware.
They are skin-coloured undies.

Damn. You could crack walnuts on that ass.

It got us talking about her, didn’t it?

@poofandmook
Don’t be so hard on yourself.

According to Venus it is all a part of her design theme this year: Illusions.

I think she was just looking to shock and maybe get some people to fondle fumble their balls.

I think she’s trying to create a bit more press for herself and found a way to do it with minimal effort.

Also… I think that outfit (odd as it was) is nothing compared to the vomit inducing nightmarish crap that Lady Gaga continues to “dress” herself in… now there’s a woman with horrible taste.

I bet the US Tennis Association “encouraged” her to go for it. Ratings mean big time dollars for everyone!

Well,Silly!.It matches her bra! ;)

lol I’m more an Ivanovic man, but that’s pretty awright. Good on you Venus!

They are the same length and offer the same coverage as all women’s tennis undies do. Actually women used to wear pants that were cut like bikini underwear, they were uncomfortable and less modest. These just happen to be a nice shade of brown or tan. If I wore them against my white skin you would not be saying anything. They just happen to match her skin tone. I don’t think it is a big deal.

I do agree with @susanc and for the first time ever, @tinyfaery, she is a goddess and you could crack walnuts on her butt. I think she has the best female tennis body since Stephi Graff. Now if you want to talk about male tennis bodies, no one has ever come close to Stephan Edberg, what a butt!!! But of course, Roger has the classic tennis body, very nice. Monfils and Mina, the Frenchmen are pretty damned nice to look at too, very cut!

There are rapists/molesters sexual harrasers perverts in general…who are helped by these images, on top of the ones in music videos, video games. etc. So it is gruesome from that aspect of it. Whether they are “not forced” to wear them does not change the fact that they are providing them a lot of help/trigger. So, it is not none of our business, it is everybody’s business.

Just the fact that the brothers and fathers would be seeing it is nauseating. It is beyond bad.

There is “So, You Think You Can Dance, models who are dressed in see through clothes, endless examples, the pornographic nature of the dance moves… There should be no job/career where you are required to sell your body. There should be no sex work involved in being a dancer (except for stripper) or tennis player, etc. If it were not required , there would be the exceptions who would wear revealing clothes, not all the tennis players, not all the ..It can’t be a choice, even they say it is their choice.

Just because the industry has brainwashed a lot of people that it is art, doesn’t make it art. It is sex work.

@flo I realize that it may seem counterintuitive at first, but the people who have actually studied whether access to porn and provocative clothing in cause more rapes and child molestation have found that porn is not the cause. In fact, cultures that insist of extremes of modesty among women have the higher incidence of rape and of child abuse. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14795-SLO-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m7d4-More-porn-means-less-rape

@ETpro People it stands to reason there would be results of “studies” out there funded directly or not so indirectly by people who benefit from the porn/sex industry.
And these “studies” would appeal to the ones who need excuses for doing the wrong things.

@ETpro Please ignore the 1st word above, “People”.

She thinks it’s sexy and fashionable. I disagree, but when you’ve won seven Grand Slams and $26 million in prize money (second on the all-time all-sport list after her li’l sister), you’ve earned the right to be eccentric.

She’s wearing pantyhose. So what?

@ETpro by the way, the topic is how to not dress in public, on TV, etc. It is not about consuming porn in private, or adults going to strip clubs. Two different topics. We don’t want to provide the sex criminals a trigger with the imagary, so all they have to do is find a children or other victims. They might be working hard not to come accross it, like staying away from strip clubs etc. They should not have to avoid watching dance competitions, ladies tennis where the players/dancers etc., in anything but clothes that leave little to the imagination.

There is that video clip of children of 7 to 9 year olds in a dance class dancing to Beyonce’s “all the single ladies” dressed like strippers. ‘Nuf said.

@flo If you can refute the studies, please feel free to do so. It is not a refutation to simply imply that any study that finds something contrary to your personal belief system must be flawed because the researchers “obviously” had a secret agenda to serve in their study. That sort of refusal to recognize to results of scientific studies generally indicates that the prejudice is on exactly the other end of the equation.

I realize porn was not the subject of this question. I realize what the topic was, the linked photo of Venus Williams. Here is what you said about that. “There are rapists/molesters sexual harrasers [sic] perverts in general…who are helped by these images, on top of the ones in music videos, video games. etc.” I was simply saying that the best science says the opposite, and even porn doesn’t have the corrupting influence that the modern Pharisees claim it does.

Rape is not reduced in countries with extreme repression of provocative dress. In fact, it is high in nations that bar women form exposing any inch of their skin in public places.

Surely, rape should be unheard of in regions that completely criminalize porn and that insist women be covered head to toe with no ivisble flesh show

@ETpro What is defense lawyers job? What is PR people’s job?

@flo I ma not arguing that all studies are right. Many are in fact done with a hidden agenda. Studies can be biased by carefully phrasing the questions to elicit the answer you want, or by selecting a target audience that will give anything but a representative sampling. But peer reviewed research can’t get away with such shenanigans, and that is the sort of study I am referring to. If you do not believe in peer reviewed studies unless they produce results that you want the to produce, who is biased; you or the entire scientific community?

@ETpro See, it had to be my last posting that got your “I ma not arguing that all studies are right. Many are in fact done with a hidden agenda. Studies can be biased by carefully phrasing the questions to elicit the answer you want, or by selecting a target audience that will give anything but a representative sampling.” There is a reason for that. You are trying to confuse the public by making noise. That is all. You make it sound like everyone who is reading knows for a fact that the “studies” that you refer to are peer reviewed. It is all smoke and mirros. You are arguing against the most basic truth. There is a time and place for everything. We don’t expose children to porn we don’t take them to strip clubs for a reason. You didn’t address the video clip with the children. why?

I don’t get into the the video clip on the children dancing because that wasn’t the topic. I don’t get into porn for children or taking kids to strip clubs because that wasn’t the topic. I took issue with your claim that all shows of female flesh have a corrupting influence on society. My apologies if I failed to not that I was referring to peer reviewed research refuting that claim. I was. As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed data ahowing what exposure to porn or strip clubs would do to children.

@ETpro Please,
What is defense lawyers job? What is PR people’s job?
To claim ”...The entire scientific community..” WOW. That right there is enough.

Would you show “peer reviewed studies” that showed the exact opposite to the studies you refer to, What if they become refuted in the future what will you say then?
There are positions that are money related, and there are positions that are not money related.

What question would be the right topic for the children dancing clip?

What is defense lawyers job? What is PR people’s job?
To make bad look not so bad. To argue against in this case, “there is a time and place for everything”.

Your position, whether it is paid for or not, helps the criminals.

Please start by answering the question:
What is defense lawyers job? What is PR people’s job?

@flo If future studies indicate that earlier ones were wrong, I would change my opinion in line with newer, more conclusive evidence. My world didn’t fall apart when they invented a cure for polio, or come unglued when we learned that the universe isn’t slowing it’s expansion from the big bang, but it accelerating instead. I am as open to science on social issues as I am on cosmology or medicine.

@ETpro
What is defense lawyers job? You keep avoiding to answer that.

“As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed data showing what exposure to porn or strip clubs would do to children” You actually considered it. See?

There is so much in my postings you are not dealing with. Defense lawyers for porn addicts who end up doing bad things, porn addicts, and some other people need to use “studies” like that.

You could not agree with “there is time and place for eveything”. Is that like lead for superman for you?

Moral people would not allow studies to sway them into becoming less moral. They just think there must be something wrong with the studies. There are those who scour and search for the one that helps them remain…

@flo I apologize if I seemed evasive. I was trying to deal with the essence of the issue at hand, the likelyhood that clothing like Venus Williams wore would corrupt society. I took it that your question about the role of defense attorneys was simply aimed at supporting the idea that bias can exist.

To answer it directly, the proper role of a defense attorney is to mount the most powerful defense s/he possibly clan for the client at hand without stepping outside the bounds of the legal requirements of incumbent upon any officer of the court. Likewise, in our adversarial system of justice, the same in reverse applies to the prosecuting attorney.

@ETpro The kind of lawyers who prefer to defend the despicable people? They are there to be despicable.

That is not the only thing you evaded. What does ‘time and place for everything’ mean to you?

@flo Law students learn that our entire judicial system works on an adversarial concept. It is not a despicable act to defend someone who has likely committed a despicable act.

Since the advent of DNA testing, we have learned that all too often, even when a defense lawyer does his utmost in a capital murder case, our adversarial system fails and we convict an innocent person.

If defense lawyers were taught to size up a new client and give them a lousy defense if they thought them guilty, the number of false convictions would skyrocket. Sending an innocent person to death row while the guilty party walks free is far more despicable than upholding our present system. Our adversarial system, imperfect as it is, is one of the fairest in the world. I would not change it by letting public opinion of guilt determine the outcome of trials. That would be no fairer than Stalin’s show trials.

As to the meaning of “time and place for everything” I believe it to mean that certain things are appropriate in one setting, but not in another. Telling jokes and being boisterous is fine for a party, but inappropriate at a funeral. The idiom is a foreshortening of Ecclesiastes 3:1 and is explained in more detail in verse 1–15 there.

Now, what does the fact that defense attorneys advocate for their client and that certain things are appropriate in one setting and not in another have to do with the validity of a set of peer reviewed scientific studies?

@ETpro

On one of your postings above:

” I would change my opinion in line with newer, more conclusive evidence. My world didn’t fall apart when they invented a cure for polio” i.,e the cure for poilio is a bad news for you but you managed to persevere? I don’t even know what to make of that. Cure for polio is good for even the bad guys.
And
“As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed data showing what exposure to porn or strip clubs would do to children.”
Again, I should have just highlighted that and left it at that. You actually considered it.

The people who only defend the admitted, unrepentant, criminals are doing it to help improve justice system, right? The criminals who go to law school to become more successful criminals are doing it to help improve the well being of humanity, right? of course, It is a no brainer.

Your “Telling jokes and being boisterous is fine for a party, but inappropriate at a funeral.“You didn’t stay in context? To evade to issue. You just answered that just like you were answering a child who heard it for the first time was asking you. Trustworthy, right?

By continuing here, I am only helping… I am allowing you to repeat, (in order to brainwash) “the term ” peer reviewed scientific studies”. “The entire scientific community” That is a telling statement right there. That is so funny, except you didn’t mean it to be.

@flo that’s a whole lot of words for very little answer. I won’t take either side in this but unless there is reviewed and reproducible scientific evidence to back up either claim then there really isn’t much behind it besides personal opinion.

Also… “The people who only defend the admitted, unrepentant, criminals are doing it to help improve justice system, right? The criminals who go to law school to become more successful criminals are doing it to help improve the well being of humanity, right? of course, It is a no brainer.” is such a blatant generalization that it actually negates it’s own validity. The fact that some people game the system and benefit while acting against the principles upon which it was founded does not mean that all the people involved in the system do so. A few bad apples do not make the rest any less honorable or effective and to say that they do would not only be prejudiced, it would also be a slap in the face to the people that do their job the way it was meant to be done and try to preserve a system in which by and large there is a genuine preoccupation for keeping the innocent out of prison and proving guilt before administering punishment.

@ETpro bye-bye.

@flo. You took the words right out of my thoughts. PLONK!

@Dr_C I didn’t look at your username there, when I answered last.

But anyway, the answer to the Q is she was wearing that to cheat. She wanted to earn more money without going to a strip club and stripping. Tennnis palying doesn’t require flashing.
Flashers are not only the ones in the park.

And ”..to confuse her rival? part of the Q, People who need to confuse the rival arenn’t sure that they can win without shenanigans, cheating. Maybe they are wrong, but what they are telling the world is “I don’t think I can win cleanly against this rival”.

Let me add just to put it all in the same posting:

But anyway, the answer to the Q is she was wearing that to cheat. She wanted to earn more money without going to a strip club and stripping. Tennnis palying doesn’t require flashing.
Flashers are not only the ones in the park.

good lord.

@Dr_C you are most certainly on @ETpro`s side, despite the ``I won’t take either side…`` Reading you, shows you might as well be the the same person.

@flo as a scientist and a catholic I am a child of two faiths which I find mesh perfectly for me… My morality and my need for answers are rarely at odds… so when I say ”unless there is reviewed and reproducible scientific evidence to back up either claim then there really isn’t much behind it besides personal opinion” I’m not saying ”@ETpro is right” or making an argument for the studies he may have brought up, rather my words have no meaning other than their face value… which is without reviewed and reproducible scientific evidence to back up either claim then there really isn’t much behind it besides personal opinion.

I don’t think this is a difficult concept. If you like make an argument pertaining to what I actually said instead of hiding behind “you agree with him so you might as well be the same person” and maybe have an actual exchange of ideas. I never said I agreed with his view on this subject.. I said that without proof there is not but opinion.

So, please feel free to argue the merits of what I said. I won’t put words in your mouth, I would expect the same courtesy from you.

@Dr_C First, I will let you answer the question ( the original posting).

@flo check 5 post before your first on this thread. Here is my answer to the question.

@Dr_C So, you saw my answer, time stamp says “two days ago”. Compare our answers. What more is there to say.

@flo considering that the post of mine you responded to (stemming this conversation) has to do with the difference between opinion and verifiable fact I’d say there’s quite a lot to say.

@Dr_C Sorry I assumed that you hadn’t answered the OP, by the way.
The part in Italics is Edit.

-The fact that your answer to the OP, could be an answer to a question about someone who was just dressed gaudily, (calling it just “odd”) as if it was about mismacthing colors, a giangantic hat, loud makeup) and nothing risque is a verifiable fact.
-I don’t know if Lady Ga Ga has exposed anything, but that is neither here nor there. That is also a verifiable fact. Need I go on? Is there any need to get to this “study” or “studies”?
-I just responded to your posting, which said @flo ”...I won’t take either side…”, to say you two on the same side. I can take that back, no problem. But I was just showing neither of you showed that you are not advocating.
As to “I’d say there’s quite a lot to say.”, there is nothing to stop you from just stating them without having to wait for me.

@flo #1 stating that an answer given to this question may be used to answer a different yet similar question is not a verifiable fact. It is opinion.

#2 Lady Gaga’s wardrobe or lack there of used in comparison in order to quantify or qualify the garishness of Ms. Williams’ outfit is not ”neither here nor there” as it provides a gauge with which to measure the aforementioned outfit compared to what mainstream society now deems “aceptable”. Also the term “neither here nor there” is not a “verifiable fact” either, and suggesting that a study is required in order to verify opinion based on personal taste is misguided at best.

#3 You seem to have either not understood or misenterpreted on purpose the post you responded to in which I asserted I wouldn’t take sides. If you recall I mentioned the validity of empirical evidence and verifiable data in comparison to opinion specifically pertaining to the line of thought you and @ETpro were pursuing concerning pornography and it’s effect on young minds. Since you neither provided any verifiable data or form of proof other than your opinion I am forced to conclude either you have none, cannot find any or simply did not understand.

In short… If you can prove that your opinion about the effect of pornography or exposure to sexually explicit media (a classification which is subjective at best) is founded on some sort of valid and verifiable data, then it might carry some weight.

@Dr_C Why wouldn’t have anything to say about my answer to the OP? Why did you need to sidestep it? Because, you can’t argue with it. Why wouldn’t you state that you agree with it? Because you are advocating. Advocating is about anything to win, not necessaily to get the the solution of any problem.

-Only some defense lawyers need to point out not all lawyers are bad.

-My position requires no study. Let’s say Michael Vic was never prosecuted. It is cruel to leave a dog in the car in the summer with the window up is a fact regardless of the existance of Michael Vic. I am guessing you are going to go “that is a criminal act and this is not….”
“There is no such thing as wrong, we just have to find someone who did worse, and we just have to confuse people” Who said that? You need the last word. And I am sure you will get the last word in because you need it for appearance purposes. I don’t.

@flo once again you keep getting confused. I think you need to go back and re-read the answers. We were past posting on our original answers as the second posts are what led to the discussion. I never commented on your first post because (just as mine) it was opinion and not related to our side discussion on the validity of non-verifiable statements.

I am not sidestepping anything. I am simply adressing the topic which we were discussing. Please stop trying to change the subject to try and create the appearance of actually having and answer.

Secondly, your position on the effect of pornography on the developing mind does require study. It is not comparable to an act of cruelty on an animal and trying to make such a comparison is not only reaching… it’s plain ignorant. So far beyond “apples and oranges” that it borders on the infantile.

People being wrong or finding those who are more wrong was never mentioned in this discussion. you brought that in. Would you like to try and explain why you think it’s relevant?

Don’t forget now.. we’re discussing the validity of opinion over verifiable data. Try and stay on topic. Feel free to take the last word, just try and make it worth while.

@Dr_C I am too busy promoting a race to the bottom somewhere else.