Wearing makeup, though -- the mark of Cain.
Well, a spot on his forehead, wasn't it?
Yeah, female athletes are cool in exactly this way. Unfortunately, everyone knows this, so, you know...you have no shot.
But is this kind of development so out–of–reach for women besides top athletes, or something that would be much more common—and probably is—among people who either work out or labor physically? The triceps on the woman who used to come around to clean offices, where I used to work, a youngish Mexican woman, was a lot like the ones in the picture.
An Ogged's reach should exceed his grasp, IYKWIM.
Also, "should could use," Ogged? This isn't backwoods Pennsylvania, this is the internet. Please use your grammar accordingly.
You want posts at 6am, you're gonna gotta deal with some errors.
Shouldn't you be swimming at 6am?
That is when the fast people swim.
I'm on the elliptical in the morning. I tried morning swimming and hated it, so I guess lunchtime is when the fast people swim now.
Maybe it's not truly remarkable, but I'm just personally pleased that "triceps she could use to pound you into dust" is expressed as exponentially increasing her attractiveness. I have imaginary triceps just like that...
You want posts at 6am, you're gonna gotta deal with some errors.
Please ogged, we want you to be at your best when you post. Don't burn yourself out.
a spot on his forehead
LB is predjudiced against Hindu women.
Although it's questionable whether this is technically a swimming post, I'm going to treat it like one for the purpose of posing another question to the Swimmers of Unfogged: anybody train in a drag suit? I need a new suit and the options offered on the Speedo site are more than I can cope with, without some kind of decision rule. I was thinking about a drag suit, though.
Btw, I've been trying out the pike turn, and I see what everybody means, but I miss the wall enough that it's embarrassing.
Oh, and I agree that the combination of girly + ripped is very cute.
Impressive triceps. I don't think it's unusual, though, among women who work out those muscles. Plus the way she's posed highlights them.
It's not the muscles. It's what the muscles represent: a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun--and it is fun--and not a major mode of being. (Note that in no way do I mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with girlishness, or that it doesn't have its own massive positives, or that many people wouldn't prefer, rightly, girlish girls. Or that girlish girls can't have muscles.)
cereb, drag suits do tend to show off the cock, but otherwise, I'm not sure why you'd get one; are you training or just swimming recreationally? But surely Will and Jake know more about this than I do.
in no way do I mean to suggest...that girlish girls can't have muscles
But that is exactly what you are suggesting: the muscles "represent a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun" -- this means that muscles --> ~actually girlish, or actually girlish --> ~muscles.
SCMTim -- edit "not a major mode of being" to "not an exclusive/limited mode of being" and you have articulated exactly what I couldn't find words for as to why I like that the triceps are appreciated.
It's what the muscles represent: a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun--and it is fun--and not a major mode of being.
Oh, bullshit. "Yes, by the fact that this woman has low body fat and a body type reflecting a lot of physical effort, I can establish that she's really independent minded!" This woman's a champion athlete, and good for her, but being attractively lean with muscles doesn't say anything about your character.
being attractively lean with muscles doesn't say anything about your character
LB doesn't believe in any character proxies. Surely it says something.
25: I would say it at least shows motivation.
Do men's bodies reveal their characters?
Maybe the guys here should post pictures of their triceps and we can comment on what they mean.
It's what the muscles represent: a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun--and it is fun--and not a major mode of being.
Certainly, because no one who ever works out and emulates the toned-with-D-cups fashions in the media is at all concerned with girlishness or being feminine and beautiful. Muscles = bad proxy for non-obsession with girlishness in a world where Madonna's held up as a fit and beautiful ideal.
Or what 24 said.
Well, it says either that your taste for recreation is sports, or that you're massively vain and work out obsessively in an attempt to be prettier, or anything on a spectrum between the two. I know people with impressive muscle development for whom it says the same thing about their character as their habit of getting beauty treatments.
You can put someone's physical appearance and their behavior together to learn some things about them, but you really can't do much with appearance alone.
Freaky muscles can also be created almost entirely by good genes, in my experience.
This woman's a champion athlete, and good for her, but being attractively lean with muscles doesn't say anything about your character.
It's the champion athlete (or committed athlete) part that matters, not the muscles. The muscles are a result of the commitment to her sport. Her serious commitment to (and I suppose success in) the sport is what's really being tracked, I think.
I probably could have said that better the first time, but I probably could have said it better this time, as well.
Right, but that's the accomplishments, not the visible triceps. You can get the visible triceps without the accomplishments. Crushing on Kirk because she's the second best breaststroker in the world, and thinking that that says something about her character, is cool (and admiring her muscles both because they're attractive and because they enable the accomplishment, likewise). Thinking you can read someone's character from their having defined triceps in a pretty dress? Not so much.
Continuing in the killjoy spirit, even saying you can read someone's character from their accomplishments is weak.
Kirby Puckett was a jolly fat man who smiled and made the baseball Hall of Fame and beat his wife.
Kirk is way too young for you, you pervs.
I have no idea what it says about her character, fwiw. I don't think the accomplishment--second best in the world is an extremely rare characteristic--matters at all. And no, the triceps don't matter at all.
But no one is making the kind of claim refuted in 34. It's not about whether your muscles and coordination tell us whether you're a good person, but whether they tell us anything at all.
34: Right, but I think what Tim's saying is that women who are tough and dedicated athletes and yet still occassionally have fun being "girly" tend statistically not to beat their wives.
It's worth noting the widely reported fact that President Bush thinks dedication to physical fitness is an important character proxy.
37: Tim said "a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun--and it is fun--and not a major mode of being." I'm pretty sure muscles don't tell you that.
I thought Tim was saying something like (and I paraphrase):
It's not the muscles. It's what the muscles represent: a guarantee that the girlishness is a pose put on for fun--and it is fun--and not a major mode of being.
I mean, I get it, the ogling guilt is assuaged by the ass-kicking nature of what's on display.
Back when I was actually athletic, I noticed that many women who were very buff due to sports often tended to play up the girlishness when not playing sports. A typical routine might be to work your ass off for three hours, shower in the locker room and then meticulously apply eyeliner and mascara.
40: LB, would you be okay with this statement if it referenced her athletic accomplishments rather than her triceps? I think Tim was using the one as a proxy for the other. You're right to point out this isn't a great proxy, but I don't think that was his main point. And I think his main point was more or less right, at least for some value of "girly".
Apologetic signaling. Muscles + unkempt = lesbian. Muscles + makeup = "I'm sorry, the muscles just happen when I play sports. But I swear I'm not unfeminine or anything, honest. Please don't shun me."
That was really really uncharitable and I shouldn't have said it. My apologies to anyone I've offended.
44: Well, as I said in 33, probably. People have a lot of facets, though. Nothing's a guarantee.
Back when I was actually athletic, I noticed that many women who were very buff due to sports often tended to play up the girlishness when not playing sports. A typical routine might be to work your ass off for three hours, shower in the locker room and then meticulously apply eyeliner and mascara.
They didn't do that any more than non-buff women did, did they?
47 - right, so it's no sort of proxy at all.
Where I teach has a funny dynamic: a huge emphasis on sports, (1/3 of the students play on one of the sports teams) and the kids are from all over Texas, (gender roles fairly rigid.)
There are many girly athletes.
Hard to say. Everyone was pretty buff and pretty femme.
But that's exactly why muscles + makeup is a lousy proxy for low-maintenanceness or girliness. A girl who is traditionally feminine will probably be pretty girly even if she's very muscular. If she's not, she won't care.
are you training or just swimming recreationally
Hm, somewhere in between, I guess, and thinking the drag suit might make it seem more like training. Showing off the cock sounds like a check in the "pros" column.
I hesitate to step into this, but might it not be that the appeal of girly+muscular isn't so much what the conflict of stereotypes represents, but just the conflict itself? In other words, a tension between stereotypes embodied in a single person might be appealing in the same way that contrasting qualities within a single thing create interest in general? Say, like Thai food?
I also noticed that in a not-insignificant number of cases, girls who were good at sports were good at everything: they could run faster than you, get higher grades, lift more, and damned if they wouldn't also be more femme than you. I'd put it down to competitiveness more than fear of being thought a lesbian.
43, 45 remind me of a friend of mine from grad school. When she was out and a guy coming on to her would ask what she studied, if she was interested she'd say "psychology." If she was looking to get rid of him, she'd say "behavioral neuroscience." There does seem to be something to women having to make sure they don't seem too smart/strong/otherwise threatening to the boys.
The attraction of femmy+muscular is that pure femmy while attractive is problematic (women as docile objects blah blah blah). "Muscular" precisely negates these problems because it indicates agency and ass-kicking ability. Combine the two -- hurray!
Or what Tim said back in 20, except that you don't take it as a statement about women, but rather as a statement about what men think when they look at women.
cerebrocrat:
I swim in a suit like this http://www.srsport.com/product_info.php/products_id/1190
But, you can just as easily wear jammers.
For the most part, I am a fan of swimming fast and avoiding drag suits.
45 is just plain wrong, and undermines my joy at seeing the muscle thing appreciated. Muscles + makeup do not = "Sorry for the muscles." They = "Just because I'm strong doesn't mean I can't be feminine and just because I'm feminine doesn't mean I can be strong." Perhaps with a defiant "Gotta problem with that?" tacked on.
Also, the one muscualr lesbian I know is very well kempt.
55: Is it just me, or do both the guy and the swimsuit look like they are photoshopped separately into that pool picture?
55: Is it just me, or do both the guy and the swimsuit look like they are photoshopped separately into that pool picture?
I was thinking the same thing. Weird picture.
I swim in jammers, if any of you even care!
54, 59: So if the muscles hadn't been obvious in the picture, you'd be thinking, wow, what a docile-looking doll? I'm honestly curious as to how your mind is working here.
Because I think it's almost as much of a problem if we decide that the overtly feminine is to be despised and avoided unless suitably balanced by masculine traits, as it would be if we derided the swimmer for looking too muscular.
I do a version of the thing in 53.
When asked what I do, sometimes I answer I'm a teacher, other times I'll say a professor. Not for the same reasons, though. If I want to gloss over my profession I'll say teacher. Saying professor tends to jam up the conversation.
re: 27
Yes, my triceps would reveal that I am damn lazy, and don't work out very often.*
* and I really should, because I spend several hours a week training for a sport that I'd really be a lot better at if I got off my fat arse and went to the gym more often than once every couple of weeks.
55/58: The picture is too small to really say, but I'd guess the guy was greenscreened in from a studio session (a lot easier than poolside) which is pretty standard for low budget stuff, but the shorts have been postprocessed at least a little. Could just be a colour shift and bump (because that's what the ad is, or could be entirely reconstructed, perhaps from a s tock image).
62: This isn't a strictly gendered thing, either.
53: I don't get this reasoning at all. Are there actually guys that think intelligence is unattractive, and if so why would an intelligent woman want to date one? Same goes for athleticism. I think a marathon running neurosurgeon would be an awesome partner.
62: This I can see. I tend to do this as well. When people ask what I do I tend to just say I work with computers. Of course at that point people just tend to glaze over or back away slowly so it doesn't really help with the conversation anyway.
My concern/interest is not so much about what the reaction would have been if the muscles were not visible or were wholly squishy and soft, but about the positive reaction to the visible muscles -- and precisely for the reason that I would quibble with your second paragraph.
The fact that guys are looking at those muscles and registering "hott!" suggests that the muscles are NOT communicating "masculine" to them. (I don't think -- maybe one of the guys should confirm that it's not an attraction to a sense of masculinity?) I would never argue that a woman without ass-kicking musculature is or should be seen as unattractive (that would just be self-loathing). I just think it's a net positive that muscular is seen as just as valid as dainty. I was kind of reacting to the idea that muscles can now be just as feminine as high heels and mascara.
Are there actually guys that think intelligence is unattractive
Not unattractive, but threatening.
and if so why would an intelligent woman want to date one?
That's what I don't understand.
Thank you, Swimmers of Unfogged. I'm not completely sure what jammers are, but if they're long, then I don't like them. One reason I was interested in the drag suits that I saw is that they were all a short-ish trunk cut, which is basically what I like, but the lycra trunks I wear now didn't last well at all. If I could actually tell what those things in 55 look like, I think they might be the kind of thing I'm looking for.
The most muscular lesbian I know has a fondness for strappy, flowery sundresses and is considered the "least gay" among the girls in our circle. Also, she hates exercise. (cursed good-gened people!)
67: I think it's good if the muscles are communicating 'hott!' to the men. I'm not sure if it's good that it's communicating 'hott, because it shows she's not really girly, but just girly enough to wear low-cut dresses, so I get all of the boobs but none of the guilt and god none of the cooties.'
68: Because it's nice to get out of the house occasionally? It irritates me hearing this discussed as 'why would an otherwise sensible woman play down her accomplishments to appeal to that miniscule fraction of the population that is so out of step with our current enlightened norms as to be threatened by them'? I still think that covering up your accomplishments is a poor idea, but responding to the question "So, what do you two ladies do for a living?" when being picked up in a bar, with "We're both surgeons," still does have a strong tendency to kill the budding conversation.
66-a: You do realize this implies you'd like a partner you hardly ever see, right?
57: not just that, but the guy himself looks to be composited from clip art.
Cereb, check out the suits under "training" here.
71: This is right. Being a highly educated woman with an ambitious career is a sign that you're not a good date. Hell, eHarmony proves it with Science®. You can blame the woman for wanting to play it down, but I'm sure you guys don't lead off with whatever the equivalent for men is: how you live at home with your mom or have a crappy job or prematurely ejaculate or that you wear a piece. Or whatever.
I've played it down a couple of times only because sometimes I don't really want to talk about my degree, where it's going, or what I'm going to do with that, or answer 'gee, you must be really bored by me since you're so smart.' Sometimes I just want to enjoy the party.
71: It must just be me then, because I don't understand why that would kill a conversation. That seems like a good conversation starter to me since it leads very easily into more detailed questions like what is your specialty.
73: Yes, I know but I have a fairly individualistic personality to begin with so that isn't as big of a minus for me as it probably is for some.
that you wear a piece.
I'm liking the gun/wig ambiguity here.
53, 62: I do the same thing, either saying "programmer" or "computational scientist".
66a, 73 - I've dated a marathoner postdoc and a marathoner resident. I never saw either, but was always impressed with both.
76: Actually, I have a nametag that says "Hello, I'm ptm. I live with my mom, but the nookie noise doesn't bother her as long as I'm finished before Matlock is back from commercial."
77: Sometimes it is, and it really depends on the crowd. But sometimes you just see people's eyes glaze over, and while I don't want to date someone who doesn't respect the fact that I'm probably wearing the brains in the relationship, it's annoying to hear, 'so what are you going to do with that?' or 'so can you, like analyze me?' all the goddamn time. The situations I'm thinking of aren't even primarily romantic ones.
"Philosophy, not psychology. It requires less pot than you think."
When I was dating, I would say "I don't have a job" if I wanted to scare off the woman.
Obviously, you were only looking for women who were interested in your money, will.
"but I'm sure you guys don't lead off with whatever the equivalent for men is: how you live at home with your mom or have a crappy job or prematurely ejaculate or that you wear a piece. Or whatever."
Don't play off that with "whatever" like you were not directing that comment in my direction!!
Ogged, why aren't you wearing this to the pool? The ladies will be all over you.
54, 59: So if the muscles hadn't been obvious in the picture, you'd be thinking, wow, what a docile-looking doll? I'm honestly curious as to how your mind is working here.
I'm just the messenger.
82: Wouldn't "I'm a [divorce] lawyer" usually work just as well?
The ladies will be all over you.
"Nice and pink, I like that."
whatever the equivalent for men is: how you live at home with your mom or have a crappy job or prematurely ejaculate or that you wear a piece
Those are not equivalent because presumably no woman finds them actually attractive, although some may be willing to overlook, where there really are numerous men who find brains/accomplishment attractive.
89: Well, unless it's "I live at home with my mom, who is terminally ill and whom I am the primary caregiver to in her final days." Though, I suppose then you say, "My mom lives with me," rather than "I live with my mom."
It's not precisely equivalent, but the point is that neither gender leads off with whatever is generally construed as a weakness.
It's not precisely equivalent, but the point is that neither gender leads off with whatever is generally construed as a weakness.
Unless, of course, one can make the weakness into a display of strength, in the manner of the noble peacock.
So you're saying you should dye your toupee teal and wear it fanned?
Ogged, why aren't you wearing this to the pool?
The ladies dudes will be all over you.
Even though I still live with my mother and am a premature ejaculator, you still find my attractive—thus my actual fitness as a mate must be extraordinary!
"Well, unless it's "I live at home with my mom, who is terminally ill and whom I am the primary caregiver to in her final days." Though, I suppose then you say, "My mom lives with me," rather than "I live with my mom.""
Di Kotimy:
I'll confess that when I met my current gf, I had just sold out my interest in my house to my former gf and was living with my mom. I tried your lines.
My current gf's friends would ask where I lived. She got lots of funny looks when she told them and she would then say "But he is a divorce lawyer!!!!!"
To which they would say, "excellent! we might need him one day."
Whatever cut you get, you might consider getting one of the Speedo Endurance suits. They actually last. I got tired of buying a new suit every couple of months, after the chlorine (or maybe it was my ever-expanding waistline?) wore out the elasticated fabric; I believe ogged tipped me to these, and he was right.
"To which they would say, 'excellent! we might need him one day.'"
Ah, just the kind of positive thinking the world needs more of... Really, the 7 years with an option to renew plan just makes so much more sense.
Absolutely Di! Absolutely. Make people work for it.
I agree with Slolernr. Those suits are excellent. I actually have one in a short jammer style. It really lasts well.
Plus, the package enhancer feature that you can buy really helps.
Slolernr, are you swimming much? What did/do you swim?
Is the answer to "What do you swim" in units of speed, distance, or stroke?
When I ask those questions, I really only care about distance and stroke. How fast or slow someone is doesn't really interest me. (except Ogged. As long as I know that I can crush him like a little bug, I am happy.)
(I swim a very sloppy crawl, 10 or 12 lengths of the pool, and then stagger out of the water exhausted. I don't do this very frequently though.)
Clown:
If you swim well, it takes longer to get a good workout.
Really, you are better off not swimming well.
Slolernr, are you swimming much? What did/do you swim?
5 days a week, 1800 yds a pop, almost entirely crawl. I swam breaststroke competitively in high school but busted up a knee.
That is great. With a Master's program or by yourself?
Will: here's something I've been wondering about, when I swim crawl I sometimes have my arms extended pretty straight as they pass through the water, which seems like it should move more water so push me forward more, because the radius of the semi-circle described by my hand is greater; and sometimes my elbow is bent so my hand is closer to my body but on the opposite side of my body to the shoulder to which it is attached, which gives me more of a feeling of the water moving by. Which is preferable?
"what did you swim" gets answered with "200 IM, other sprints". Or maybe "DivIII".
As for drag suits, I say "enh". In my day, the cool kids would just buy two or three suits that fit comfortably and wear them at the same time, the one falling apart the most on the outside, where the little flappy bits added drag. Once that one completely fell apart, it'd get thrown away and a new one purchased and used as the inner layer. Nowadays I just have one speedo that fits, and another one that's two or three sizes too big that I wear on the outside.
Rinsing suits out when you are done swimming dramatically increases their lifetime.
With a Master's program or by yourself?
Just me. I can't enjoy listening to all those guys in Masters talk about what their practice 50 yd split times imply for their theoretical Olympics 100m performances.
I try to tell people to keep their hand away from their torso.
Your chest and stomach are the forbidden zones.
For the most part, your elbow will be bent at a 90 degree angle.
I have an article that I can email you that is helpful if you want.
109:
So you don't like to swim with Ogged then?
110 -- sure, e-mail away.
Not that it's relevant or permitted, but I came up with the perfect analogous job for a man which would turn off most women even though it's a pretty good job and women respect people who hold it.
Are you ready?
Nurse.
will, could you email that article to me, as well? It turns out I don't know what I'm doing.
sure. I'm not claiming it to be anything original. Just a compilation of some important points.
Just to clarify what I tried to say above:
1. I took Kirk as an example of a competent, committed athlete. I don't know anything about her.
2. My claims were based on my own limited experience and reflect only that, save that they probably seem accurate to those people who are similar enough to me along some set of vectors.
3. I don't think "competent, committed athlete" says anything about her character. I tend to have a meat-puppet view of the way people work, so I'm not 100% sure that I could use "character" properly. I certainly don't think I know anything about her as regards her positions on various "character" issues. Maybe she wants to open a dog shelter. Maybe she likes to kill puppies. Who knows?
4. That she's accomplished matters not at all to me. I've never dated anyone about whom I constantly thought, "She's accomplished." I've never been close to such a person. I think veneration makes close friendship difficult, and I suspect it makes dating very difficult. Last sentence describes the situation for people like me. If you find dating or being friends under such conditions easy, fantastic.
5. I think competent, committed athlete suggests that she has spent a lot of time in a fairly jocky culture. Many guys have a bit of exposure to such cultures in their youth, even if--like me--they were basically shit athletes who are now nearly anti-athletic. I also think that what you do influences who you are, and that, as suggested above, there are decent similarities between female jock culture and some significant subset of whatever it is that acculturates boys. So I suspect that I would understand a competent, competitive female athlete a bit better than someone who was not. That's not to say that I am more likely to like her (or she me), but just that I am more likely to understand what she says and does. I wouldn't be surprised if I found (or found myself expecting) similar ease among women who worked in male-dominated fields.
6. That she's made such a commitment suggests to me that, in a relationship, the other person isn't (at a minimum) over-important. In that direction lie other problems, obviously. But--in my experience--it suggests that interactions are likely to be pretty straightforward (for me, given my background) because, frankly, it's not worth the time to dick around on something that is not that important.
7. That she is comfortable wearing the the girlish role is also nice, because, as I said above, that can be fun. But it's not a role that I'm overly comfortable with (my own failings--I'm not great at the role required of me in those situations), so (and this is possibly an unwarranted assumtion) it's nice (for me) that it's not a major role.
8. I think that such a person is interesting to some subset of guys, of which I am one. I probably know more of those guys because I am one. And, of course, she (whoever she is) can do, and almost certainly does do, better than any of us.
9. None of this implies anything other than...that's what I think in similarly situations for, I think, reasonable reasons. I don't think there are any moral matters at play, here. Lots and lots of people like other types--I have always gathered that the girlish role is popular--and that's great.
10. I am now, apparently, a total neurotic.
I am now, apparently, a total neurotic.
Eh, you knew what you were signing on for when you started commenting here.
I'd be more impressed with Kirk's athleticism if she were nude like a proper pinup.
Actually, it was trying to decide between one of the drag suits on 75 vs. the square-cut endurance on 97 that prompted my question in the first place.
And I'd like to be on that swimcoach-will mailing list, please.
In the Nerve profile I filled out last night I most definitely did not mention that I live with my parents.
3. I don't think "competent, committed athlete" says anything about her character. I tend to have a meat-puppet view of the way people work, so I'm not 100% sure that I could use "character" properly. I certainly don't think I know anything about her as regards her positions on various "character" issues.
Unfogged has cowed you. Here are some rebuttable presumptions I make about serious athletes:
They're willing to work. Work hard, for long hours. They will work out with you instead of suggesting that you sit with them on the couch.
They they know they have to show up consistently to get results. They'll show up when they say they will. (The ones who don't, don't make it past high school athletics.)
They are more confident. 'Cause, you know, fuck you, little person who doesn't like my quads. What were your mile times?
They have the expectation that their friends are also impressive. They are used to being around people who push them and they push their friends too.
They know they can get a lot out of themselves if they try. If they do something, they would rather push themselves.
Doing MORE is the default and they disdain slacking. Go on to crazy next thing or call it a night? Crazy next thing. One more sprint? Do it hard if you're doing it.
I could go on, but my point is that I am totally willing to associate character traits with serious athletes, and by and large, they're character traits I like being around. My guess is that other athletes like being around them too.
Being well muscled is not a bad proxy for being athletic, especially when you get weird muscular tells for a sport. It isn't perfect, but it is better than lots of proxies. If you see those, you can make some pretty good guesses about the person, and if you see another character trait you like, like girliness, you might be very taken with that first impression.
I think veneration makes close friendship difficult, and I suspect it makes dating very difficult.
Well, yeah, outright veneration is probably too distancing to be compatible with intimacy. But respect and admiration are very hot. I love admiring someone I date.
s/b "I love, admiring, someone I date."
I half agree with Megan. Those are things I'd expect from a competitive athlete, but not things I'd especially like to be around. Put it this way -- athletes are focussed, and I'm focussed, but we're focussed on entirely different things, so I'd expect a lot of blank looks if I actually tried to hold a conversation with one of them guys.
I would have written something like 125, if I didn't suspect that the Swede is kinda lazy.
A cookie for Megan! She's doing well in her assertiveness program.
129: The beginning of a beautiful Emerson-style relationship.
130: Yeah, 125 looks, on its face, plausible, but doesn't track the jocks I know, who seem as likely to be low-energy slackers as anyone else. Admittedly, the jocks I know are "played college sports in an unglamorous sport/school", so they may just not be jocky enough.
Thanks, Emerson. I think the limericks inspired me.
"Rebuttable presuppositions" is about right. It's almost as if we have become so leery of stereotyping that we forbear to endorse very reliable causal regularities. There just are some things that being a serious athlete usually indicates. Of course, as Emerson says, not all such associated traits are positive.
But the Swede was an Olympian. I'm sure she trained hard at the time, but her natural state was more lounging on the couch.
132: Are the jocks you know still actually athletes, or were they athletes in college and aren't really anymore?
But the Swede was an Olympian. I'm sure she trained hard at the time, but her natural state was more lounging on the couch.
Well, if you know one person who was an exception...
I'm not buying 125. It sounds good, but just doesnt go with my experience.
Many competitive athletes work or worked really hard in their sport, but are just plain lazy outside of their sport.
The latter, but these are people I knew in college.
140 to 137, and what I mean is that they were like that when they were athletes.
I also tutored some Division I athletes: lazy!
Seriously, I think that being a serious athlete does tell you some things about a person, but I'm not sure what--more that they can push themselves than that they want to.
137:
My answer applies to former and current elite athletes. The tie that binds them might be that they are intensely focused on their particular sport. But that doesnt necessarily carry over to other things.
Except high level Ultimate players. Not a slacker playing that sport at a high level.
Except high level Ultimate players
Hackey-sack, also.
There's a big difference between "works hard at and is good at what they care about, lazy otherwise" and "all-around slacker."
Is this the racist Swede from the other thread? Who care's if he or she was an Olympic athlete. Still racist.
I'll amend my last comment. What being an elite athlete tells me is that that person knows the dedication and hard work necessary to be successful and has the capacity to do it, if they want.
You know, Swedes are very shy. I bet she was waiting for Ogged to put the hit on her the whole time. She's probably pining at home as we speak, with a picture of Ogged in a locket next to her heart and goodies.
Well, my world's been limited to people who played esoteric sports. But they've been pretty consistent within that.
Also, I'll add that I didn't like most of the people on my college team. Bunch of annoying divas. But, they weren't whiny and those traits were consistent for all of them.
Also, being an elite athlete generally means they enjoy the training and the sport. We're all dedicated at things we enjoy, check out the typing muscles of Unfogged commentators. Doesn't necessarily imply that they are disciplined when they don't enjoy it, nor can you infer much about the kid who stinks at P.E. Except that he's uncoordinated.
Hackey-sack players typically operate at a high level.
Seriously, I think that being a serious athlete does tell you some things about a person, but I'm not sure what--more that they can push themselves than that they want to.
Right. Like I was saying about appearance, it's not that it doesn't tell you anything, more that what it tells you can break in a whole bunch of different directions depending on other stuff about the person. I'm sure that Meg's 125 describes a personality type that shows up a bunch among serious jocks, I'm just doubting that it shows up often enough to make it a presumption, rebuttable or no.
Part of the trouble here is that lazy/non-lazy is an axis that really doesn't particularly characterize the serious athlete, if "serious" means "very good." We've all known the athletes who laze about like male lions when not explicitly training or playing. We also know the everything to the utmost amateur distance athlete stereotype. We need more precise pigeonholing, people!
Megan has been utterly refuted. Now she'll beat us up, as befits a serious athlete.
Of all the sports I am not any good at, the two I have most consistently wished I could do are Hackey-sack and Skateboarding. Those are the two sports my friends played when I was growing up.
This is going to be a heck of a meetup.
Damn it, baa makes a good point. Part of the reason my tutees seemed lazy is that they were worked like dogs by their coaches.
I'm just doubting that it shows up often enough to make it a presumption, rebuttable or no.
I can't think of the last time I was surprised to be wrong about that. 'Course, I move in pretty homogenous circles.
Megans list only tracks some of the elite athletes I know (others do it in more bipolar ways, or have oddly self-destructive aspects they need , etc.)
More globally though, I'd say most of the positive aspects of the list are not specific to sports. They correllate well to people who are unusually accomplished at all sorts of things. When you get to the top of all sorts of fields of endevour, very few people (the bastards!) can get by on talent alone. It takes commitment, and dedication, and focus. They tend to be surrounded by people who are doing whatever at a similar level, they are confident, etc.
Also, being visibly muscled doesn't correlate so well with being an serious athlete (the other way round works much better). Sure, if you've been involved in a sport you may know the tells and be about to say `that person is an x'. On average though, without context I'm not to sure most people could immediately tell the difference between a serious athlete and some random narcissitic gym addict.
I don't disagree quite with the list, but it is a bit besides the point and J.E. isn't completely off the mark either; I've met a couple of elite athletes who really didn't have anything much else going for them. They were very good at what they did, and good at putting their 30 hours or whatever a week in. They were also parochial, small minded, poorly educated and basically uninterested in anything outside their narrow world of sport. Worked for them, but didn't make them interesting people to be around.
Megan has been utterly refuted. Now she'll beat us up, as befits a serious athlete.
I have to go with my strengths.
Do Megan's traits track better for non high school/collegiate/professional athletes? It seems like those traits might come into play more when you don't have a coach to enforce a regimented training regime and you have to motivate yourself. Which would explain why you would see them in more esoteric sports such as ultimate.
Also, keep in mind that I know a lot more about women athletes than I do about men athletes. Those traits may come into play more if you had to choose to do your sport, if sports weren't the default for your gender.
We're all dedicated at things we enjoy
Yup, it's perfectly consistent to be dedicated to kick-ass training and lazy in the classroom or with the housework.
My problem is that I don't enjoy work.
162: I think it's basically too broad an area to characterize well. One of the most dedicated runners I've met does essentially as therapy. Another serious-amateur athlete does it to get away from his family. So these are both highly dedicated non-professionals, who dictate their own (unwavering) schedules. But it isn't exactly a positive thing in these cases.
How is the therapy one not positive? Also the get away from your family might not be positive in a sense, but it isn't the running that is causing the problem so it in itself probably isn't negative. He could be drinking to get away from his family.
Obviously nothing tracks 100% I was just curious if anyone had experience with both and if there was a difference between the two types of athletes.
trust me, it's not all positive for her, but it keeps less positive disorders at bay.
I'd say my experience with this (mixed sports & levels) is more over the map than Megans. That and, as noted I think most of her list isn't tracking anything particular to athletics, just characteristics that are one common mode of people who have accomplished something that takes a bit of effort.
He could be drinking to get away from his family.
That can be a thoroughly positive experience.
NB: It wasn't cowing that made me phrase #3 the way I did. It's just not what I see, or particularly seek. Furthermore, I was only talking about "competent, competitive athletes" or people who were such in college, not world-beaters by any means.
And, by my lights, people are getting too hung up on visible muscles. Athletic people look (and walk) differently, in my experience. (May be limited to Americans.) It's not just, or even primarily, the muscles.
People very serious about some athletic activity usually bump up against the "so are you going to go pro?" ceiling at some point. That can be a hell of a demotivator.
I know some pretty good freeskiers - none make a full time living off it, but a number have made some cash, been in some films, placed in major competitions, etc. None of them really fit Megan's stereotypes. They ski every day, but that's nothing special in Utah. They don't weight train or do much along those lines (most mountain bike to keep their quads and reflexes in shape). They just happen to be better at it than the rest of the ski bums.
I think things are rather different in racing, but those people don't deign to talk to us.
Also, I know a handful of elite ultimate players that are basically slackers about their lives and their ultimate. All are from the group in 170 - D-1AA shooting guards (deeps), tennis players that weren't going to make it as pros (handles, chasers), and such. The talent pools in ultimate is just that shallow.
huh, the last girl i really liked was also a national-level swimmer from the northwest who was good at being girly, the attractive thing was less the actual triceps, since she is pretty skinny, but more the multiple role thing, and feeling ok that she wasn't so delicate either physically or personaly: i could be more playful.
being good at stuff is hot, like personalities that get really into things usually have hobbies, and hobbies make people more interesting
i could be more playful.
Ah. The loving arm-bar.
