UKC

Heard of her?

"She’s not only one of the youngest and most talented climbers in the world right now, but more than 200,000 people follow her on social media channels.”

http://eveningsends.com/climbing/athlete-models-sierra-blair-coyle/

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I hadn't; interesting article though. I wonder if her following in the UK is high.......may be a little higher now!?

In reply to tmawer:

There is some 'discussion' about her Fb following and whether many are paid for likes from Mongolia. It's quite an education reading the comments on her Fb feed.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

"most talented in the world right now"... hardly.

Anna Kournikova springs to mind.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Surprised no one has said the inevitable yet...

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Maybe a niche for Savvas here?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


A little on the side but it amuses me that the article makes much point towards her sponsorship affiliations, and quote; 'I assume companies ultimately seek out individuals who are very talented, very likable, very good-looking and, on top of all that, have a large following on social media.'

But according to her page the affiliations are 'only': Sanuk, Roxy, SPY, fuel:one, Climb X Gear, Asana Climbing, Sierra Sage Organics, Primo Chalk, Quotable Cards, Cell Med Clinics.

I had to google most of those...

I do follow athletes on FB, not many and only those in the discipline of climbing I like, if I was super into bouldering, I may follow SBC... but all those # things and shit, just makes it a bit too twee for me.

Anyway daily dose of bullshit spouted, back to work.

In reply to GrendeI:

Interesting that none of the sponsors are well known products / companies, at least not here in the UK.

No doubt she has some talent, but there are teenagers at my local wall who are climbing better than her. Perhaps the major climbing brands feel that they need to maintain links to real climbing achievement and not simply an extension of the world of the celebrity and self publicist.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

SBC has the body of a model.
The Pooch has the body of an athlete.
I have the body of a pro darts player.

In reply to Richard White:

No doubt she has some talent, but there are teenagers at my local wall who are climbing better than her.

A bit of a bold claim perhaps? A quick Google, reveals that she hasn't done too badly in bouldering comps.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69144

Did alright at the Exeter DWS event.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Can't she be both?

Anyhow what's she ever done at Portland?

In reply to self :
Sbc :"Excuse me slightly over weight and balding middle age bloke (but I can see that you were once not so) would you mind taking a break from thruching around on that easy problem and give me spot on this for a bit"
Mab :"erm let me think , see I cant decide if you re really a climber or not and as such I will have to decline your request for assistance and continue to fail miserably on the warm up".
Or not.

In reply to GrendeI:

Roxy is a pretty big brand!

There has been a full page Climb X advert in the last couple of Alpinist issues, just her, sat on a mat (in vest and tiny shorts obviously) putting on her rock boots. Even if Climb X products didn't look so s***e, I wouldn't by them just because of that advert. It's a magazine full of inspiring words and images, even most of the adverts have images that make me regret my decision to become a desk monkey but that advert, with its "by these shoes because I'm pretty" message just grates and sits rather incongruously with the rest of the content.

In reply to Richard White:


No doubt, and I know some musicians exponentially more talented than those who appear on the X-Factor and the like, but will never enjoy the same level of popularity and success. People making a living from good genetics, publicity and marketing is hardly anything new.

In reply to krikoman:



What she ever done on Grit?

In reply to markh554:

YEah!!!


Checkmate.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Of course it’s not but it is a bit depressing when it’s an attitude that is starting to become prevalent in a pastime that you love. Climbing has always been a slightly anarchic non-mainstream activity that celebrated achievement over image and has celebrated, in muted tones, the underdog, which is part of its attraction. As climbing becomes more akin to the life from which it has been used to escape, it’s no longer the refuge it once was, which is a shame in my opinion.

In reply to galpinos:

She is lucky enough to have a face, body and persona that can be used to sell all sorts of stuff to the great unwashed - advertisers will use this as they always have done. She is probably pretty shrewd herself and has spotted her niche.

In contrast to Alex Puccio whose face and rather different body will perhaps be better at selling stuff to actual climbers.

In reply to galpinos:

Maybe, but at the end of the day you can still go and nail yourself to a big wall in a storm in Patagonia or wherever and Sierra Kinky-Coils or whatever her name is will rapidly recede into magnificent irrelevance.

But I do agree with you though.

In reply to galpinos:


Well put.

In reply to galpinos:


Can't you just ignore it /them?

In reply to galpinos:


Maybe it's time to reclaim our heritage? Throw away your razor! Bring on the Ron Hills! that'll put a stop to the rot!

In reply to galpinos:

Well said!

In reply to markh554:

What she ever done on Grit?

See my post at 0846...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

For the love of god man, don't encourage him!!!

In reply to FactorXXX:

d'oh!

In reply to galpinos:


And you say that on an internet-based climbing discussion forum?

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, absolutely and beyond this thread I doubt I will ever consider her again, particularity in terms of any real climbing achievements so far. Not to say that she won't or can't go on to do something awesome.

However, there are far too many real achievers out there, male and female, past and present, all ages, known and unknown (the dark horse brigade!), in every climbing activity to discuss in the pub, on the way to and from the crag and to be truly amazed and inspired by.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I'm not sure what the article was about, but it had some nice pictures.

In reply to Richard White:


They need to put themselves about a bit then, if they exist anywhere except your imagination.

SBC beat Emma Twyford at the DWS linked to above and it was quite a close comp although perhaps running to form in the end.

From Emma's DMM Biog:

"Emma is one of the very best female climbers operating in the current British scene. She has flashed both E7 and F8a, headpointed E9 and redpointed F8b+/c."

There might not be more than 5 female Brits who could beat SBC.

In reply to winhill:


The article mentioned that she had climbed V9. There are a number of teenagers at walls where I train who are climbing better than that. Why do they need to to put themselves about a bit? They are happy climbing and that is that. Perhaps some of them do "put themselves about a bit" I don't know as I haven't enquired.

In reply to Richard White:


That's Bisharat's prose, her website claims she did it when she was 11.

In reply to Richard White:

So presumably these teenagers are female and they have been in Boulder World Cup semi finals on a few occasions and they climb harder than V9 outside? Are you sure?

In reply to Fredt:

Ha! My opinion is not infallible, I realise that as a suited office worker my life is somewhat contradictory to the climber I portrayed in my post and that probably undermines my point but it just seems to be the start to the erosion of values that drew me into climbing in my youth and still inspires me today.

I bear no grudge against SBC, she’s making use of her talents and I’m sure creating a media profile is hard work, if different hard work to that of Alex Puccio/Shauna etc, but I would prefer to see money and support in the industry going to those who are achieving things, not those who look pretty.

I wouldn’t wish Climb-X shoes on anyone though………

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Beards are too trendy to be counter culture now and I was more a fan of eye-bleeding bright Calange trousers in my youth, the only time I've actually been laughed at for my clothes!

In reply to Robert Durran:

I could, but I haven't, I just had a whinge on the internet which probably doesn't say much for me as a climber! I'll be out in the Peak this weekend though, that's kind of the same as Patagonia.........


High praise indeed!

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Good luck to her, and any money she makes out of it.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Not enough jugs in the photos for me.

In reply to krikoman:


^ this

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Nothing new, remember the lovely Isabelle Pieshop?

In reply to 3leggeddog:

You mean Isabelle Patissier? 2 times World Cup winner and first woman to climb 8b? Some comparison, but her fame was clearly not due to looks alone.

In reply to Jamie B:

Evidently not a reader of the Thing, where I think Isabelle Pieshop first made her appearance....

Some folk have no sense of mountain literature heritage

b

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Still none the wiser really after reading that piece. Hadn't heard of her before and if her name is mentioned after the end of the week I'll be asking "who?"

In reply to 3leggeddog:


Isabelle la Belle?

Oh yes.


Though I remember her from years ago when I was the same age as some of SBC's Facebook fans are these days.

But what annoys me more about doing climbing photo shoots wearing make up, is the fact she flew over from the States to participate in the Exeter DWS event in fine September weather and flew home again without touching rock. Not a proper climber.

In reply to Owen W-G:

You expect her to climb the Ladram Bay soft sandstone sea stacks do you? Harsh...

In reply to Owen W-G:

Further down the page on the comments;

"I used to be an athlete model until my face was disfigured in a horrible dyno accident"

In reply to Casa Alfredino:

Sierra Blair-Coyle, THE face of Salewa Warthogs!

Andrew had to be really careful writing that piece. It needed doing and I thought he was very objective.

Best response so far:

"Great article. My personal view of the SBC phenomenon is a little harsher than your very objective perspective. She is very much a "thing," objectified by her own actions, seemingly on purpose. While I have no doubt that she enjoys climbing, the sport aspect appears to just be a reason to lift her leg above her head for a shameless camel toe shot that is then posted on Facebook to the delight of 40,000 Middle Eastern Barbie worshipers that want to drink her bath water and tell her so. The response, as you pointed out, is . Translation: "I'm a sex object and I like it!"

One of your points is that despite her not being a world class athlete, her visibility makes her a valuable asset to the companies that sponsor her. But I think you overlooked, or neglected, the fact that the climbing industry has not bought in to the SBC craze. A look through her sponsor list: Sanuk, Roxy, Spy, Fuel One, ClimbX, Asana, Bluewater, Sierra Sage, and Quotable. Just 1/3 are climbing companies. ClimbX is a joke, Asana and Bluewater are legit (though I've never seen her tie into a rope) and none of these, presumably, pay her any kind of substantial salary or place her front and center in their ad campaigns. The rest of her sponsors are shoes, booty shorts, sunglasses, and greeting cards? For the most part they're companies that are entirely unrecognizable to climbers.

If she's such a valuable figure, complete with 200,000+ followers, why hasn't the climbing industry cashed in on her visibility? Why isn't she on the North Face ticket? Mountain Hardware? Black Diamond? What's up guys? Don't you want a piece of this?

I think the answer to this question is that the industry knows that those 200,000+ followers aren't their target market—they're not climbers that buy gear. They're creepers, 12-year-olds, and fan boys that swoon over those butt shots. It's either that, or (is it possible) the industry is holding itself to a higher standard of decency. Maybe they're just not ready to shamelessly promote their product by slapping their logo on a tight little ass. Or maybe they know that for a certain percentage of their market, doing so would have a detrimental effect. I know that I'd personally be turned off to a product if I saw them throw marketing dollars toward good-looking people instead of the true athletes that are at the cutting edge of the sport.

You wrote: "Paying someone to pimp your products to their hundreds of thousands of Facebook fans will, in every way,provide a much better ROI than paying some nappy-headed kid to spend all day brushing obscure 5.15 crimpers in the woods."

But as it stands, the nappy-headed kids are still getting those sponsor dollars from the North Face and Black Diamond while SBC is likely getting some free lip-balm and ClimbX shoes. If it were up to me, I'd like to see it stay that way."

In reply to planetmarshall:


next thing you'll be telling me is Irish horse racing has some corruption issues

In reply to Tom Last:


>Sierra Blair-Coyle, THE face of She-Wees!

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Good response. I only hope that when they say;


That it does indeed stay that way, but unfortunately I'm not so sure. Race to the bottom (forgive the pun) and all that.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


The author of this comment is the one who is turning SBC in to a 'thing' and, to quote his distasteful words, sees her not as a person but as a "tight little ass". I think this is sexist in the extreme.

SBC is a fairly talented climber and good at promoting herself. Because she is female, we assume that she must have used her sexuality to achieve her fame. Some men, as the author of a recent article on climbcore (can't link it here??) points out, who are relatively mediocre climbers (compared to the best) and have good self-promotion skills also achieve fame, but we do not assume that they are using their sexuality to do so. The difference in the case of this guy and SBC is that SBC is female. The assumption that is made is therefore made on the basis of her sex; it is sexist.

This assumption is one that the author of the quoted comment is making when he reduces her to an object and claims that she uses her sexuality to achieve her position.

The author is one that is reducing her to a sex object, and it's disgusting.

In reply to theomoore:


Assume?

In reply to theomoore:


It is not an assumption. It is blindingly obvious.

In reply to jon:
"Assume?"

Bad wording by me: we assume her sexuality is the most important factor in her being famous. We overlook her ability to promote herself and to climb at a good level and assume that her sexuality is the main reason she is famous.

(We are not assuming that her sexuality contributes to her fame, we are assuming that it is the most important factor in her being famous).

In reply to theomoore:

I'm not assuming anything. I KNOW what I think.

In reply to theomoore:


You are wrong.

She has a choice to present herself virtually naked and in provocative poses on a daily basis, or not.

She isn't stupid and nor are most that are aware of her marketing; sex sells as Bob and Jon say; it's bleeding' obvious.

She presents herself as a sex object almost exclusively, her choice.

She's an OK climber, but she's no Shauna Coxsey or Steph Davis or Lynn Hill, or many other women climbers who are climbers first.

M

In reply to Michael Ryan:

very good comment (from Zofia Reych) which is a good explanation of what is wrong

>>

There's one important part that's missing from this article and that is the issue of a culture, which supports women more for their looks than for their achievements. As you said, there are many male 'athlete models', but the scale of it is nowhere near what it is with women. And of course individuals like SBC or Caroline Gleich have every right to milk that culture, yet the question is, would they maybe be better athletes, or in general people, if they spent less time doing their hair? Very possible, but they'll never get to know that cause the society told them it's their hair, their white teeth, and their buttocks that are the most important things about them.

And to look at the issue from yet another perspective, a female athlete who refuses to follow the 'oh i'm so cute' pattern, might actually struggle with attracting sponsorship, simply because she wouldn't be perceived as hot and wouldn't sell as many t-shirts/watches/sunglasses, or whatever else.

Should we really partake in creating a culture which values people for how they look like and not for what they do? A question especially pertinent in case of women, as objectification leads to lower importance associated with women's achievements at best (lower prices for female athletes in comps?), and to violence at worst. As members of the supposedly 'lifestyle sport' of climbing, with counter culturalist roots, we should be weary of such bullshit.

>>

It's never been easy to make money from climbing - we're such a tight-fisted bunch - and those that do tend to face recriminations that others are more worthy of what little money is floating around. But it's never going to be a meritocracy where it all about how hard you climb - it's sponsor driven and the sponsor like good photos. And good looking people. This girl has found a way to make her limited talent go a long way. Yes there are negative effects (as detailed above), but ad agencies the world over aren't suddenly going to stop using good looking people.

She is clearly both a climber AND a model - one career pays, the other doesn't, but as a model she is at least promoting an active lifestyle rather than simply walking down a catwalk.

In reply to markh554:


More importantly what has she ever done on green?

In reply to theomoore:

Making the comparison between male and female climbers using their assets to further their careers doesn't work because women just don't buy it in the same way as 13 year old boys and dirty old men do.

In reply to Michael Ryan / Michael the tall

Really good quoted comments there. I couldn't agree more. She is the one selling herself as a sex object. I can't find it now but there's a video of her out there bouldering at Flagstaff or Hueco or somewhere like that in her absolutely tiny shorts and doing loads of completely unnecessary legs wide open moves for the camera. Contrast her with someone like Hazel Findlay or Shauna Coxsey etc (As others have said) who really are talented athletes. As others have also said I'm happy that the 'mainstream' climbing companies don't really seem to want to have anything to do with her. What a great role-model she is for young girls...e.g. if you want to be successful you have to be pretty, wear no clothing and wear makeup every time you go climbing. wtf :s

In reply to jsmcfarland:

I'm not a fan (too crimpy), but in the interests of balance -
Surely in a climbing world of great, tough female role models, having one who can compete while still being a bit glam is a good thing?
If it shows girls you can still climb with hair and nails if you want, that has to be good, too. Not all girls want to be Rambo.
On a professional level it make no difference what you look like, but from the perspective of promoting the sport to a wider female audience it does.

I'm not advocating tottering up Stanage in heels btw. I just don't think you should bash someone for having hot pants and a blow dry.

In reply to:

are you guys just jealous or gay? or both???

In reply to eivrol:


Of course. You've grasped the issue immediately.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I suspect that he has together with the cant that often accompanies these types of threads.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Could it not be climber or inane grinning mong? The spiritual intensity man. I liked the bit on her tumbler about granny giving her a pearl necklace. I'm sure there's a Frank Zappa song in there somewhere.

D

In reply to SiGregory:

oh come on. dont you think thats a bit on the "shrink it and pink it" side? Most women who climb have no particular urge to dress like barbie while doing so and I doubt its the worry about breaking nails that puts them off. Though the chafing possibilities of climbing grit in a bikini might...

I reckon S_B-C is a reasonably talented climber who thinks she's hit on a good way of marketing herself to make a living from climbing, but I think its definitely men who she's marketing herself at - I suspect a lot of women climbers just groan inwardly.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

My feminist partner has just asked why are a load of men discussing her in the first place as this, in itself, seem to be indicative of a sexist bias. We would not be having this discussion about a male climber?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

If a male climber was self-publicising by showing that much arse the UKC thread would be very busy indeed - although I'm guessing the responses would be different!

In reply to Bulls Crack:


I doubt a male climber would be able to make a living by promoting himself in such a fashion. I'd say that's indicative of a sexist bias, in that attractive women are marketable as sex objects and men are not.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Kenton Cool

In reply to RedFive:


in a thong with his legs akimbo.......

In reply to RedFive:

Kenton Cool has a number of major first ascents to his name, and did the Everest Horseshoe, as well as his 11 ascents of Everest itself.

But I can think of another Everest summiter who is a master of self-promotion, very well known to the British public as a climber but frequently derided on these forums for being something of a fraud.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

My feminist partner has just asked why are a load of men discussing her in the first place as this, in itself, seem to be indicative of a sexist bias. We would not be having this discussion about a male climber?

Maybe the roles would be reversed if the activity was one dominated by women?
Additionally, a lot of women are swayed/influenced by seeing images of attractive women, you only have to look at mainstream advertising to see that.
Also, if it makes younger 'girly type' women look at climbing as an activity that can and is actively done by other young 'girly type' women, then maybe they'll be encouraged to have a go? At the moment, they probably think it's only done by miserable old bearded men in smelly clothing...

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Does it matter?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Is your partner's definition of feminism that only women can criticise other women for which may negatively effect all women ? So men shouldn't express any opposition to Page 3 because the models are women and exercising their own choice ?

In reply to Kid Spatula:


A good and difficult question that is very hard to answer.

The increase in sexualised images of young people has almost become the norm in the media so much so that it has a knock-on effect of conditioning others. Some believe that that is bad as it steals the innocence of childhood and it can have a negative effect on the sexual health and minds of teens and young adults.

It is a subject that is well discussed from politicians to heath workers and parents.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

But none of the images in the piece are sexualised. Unless you think that any women dressed for sport is sexualised. Miley Cyrus twerking and fellating a sledgehammer is sexualised.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Climbing magazines often feature semi-clad, buff men doing athletic stuff?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

In the 'piece'? You mean Andrew's article?

Take a look at the Facebook feed.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


True - but the audience for these ads is largely other men, who see an athletic ideal they want to aspire to - not women who see a sex object they can possess ( not that women are immune from objectifying men, it's just that it's not as pervasive an idea in the media ).

In reply to Michael Ryan:


So was Satanic Ritual Abuse and now we regard everyone involved as complete nutjobs.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Well, I think the reference to Kenton Cool was a bit tongue in cheek.

Regarding the 'other personality', sure there are certainly men with dubious climbing credentials who have succeeded on the basis of clever marketing - but I can't think of an example where sex is a major part of that marketing.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


I like that one of James McChaffie in a thong, lips pouting, showing off his cleavage and legs akimbo on the headwall of Little Chamonix.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I don't use facebook, but a quick look on her website reveals nothing that I would call sexual or inappropriate.

But as I look at UKC, there is a Marmot advert with a very attractive woman on it. Now I don't want to stray off into a helmet debate, but my first reaction to that image is that the reason she isn't wearing a helmet is to show off her lovely flowing hair. Unlike some of the companies that sponsor SBC, Marmot is not a "joke" brand.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


If you did, it would be clear.

In reply to planetmarshall:


In both cases we got people selling clothing, so the message is the same - dress like me and you can be as popular as me.

(By 'me' I mean the models. Dress like Chris the Tall and people think you're homeless)

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I find the comments on her facebook photos very creepy and weird. If they were directed at me - admittedly unlikely - I would feel very comfortable.

Based on her competition results I would say she isn't an elite climber, but she is certainly a skilled social media user, so if you measure success in that vapid, virtual currency that is clicks, likes and shares then yes she is doing well.

I'm not sure she is a good role model for young, female climbers. Sure she can't help being pretty but she seems to post a lot of photos of her arse. This would probably be more acceptable if she was solely a model but it's the model/climber thing that confuses the issue.

I would like to think that climbing and climbers are a cut above the rest and thus less likely to be seduced by appeals to the lowest common denominator, certainly it seems that the big climbing companies have no interest which is heartening.

As climbers I think we focus on what a person does rather than now they look. This is to be much admired.

In reply to planetmarshall:

It was

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That's the central point, isn't it? While none of SBC's images are explicitly sexualised in the Miley Cyrus way, the author of the article freely admits to enjoy seeing the pictures because "she's totally hot". Most heterosexual men would agree.

Any image of a hot young girl (or boy!), dressed in perfectly-suitable-yet-undeniably-skimpy clothes is almost unavoidably more sexualised than the very same girl/boy skiing and covered head-to-toe in warm clothes and a hat.

The same problem is present (indeed, to a greater degree) in surfing these days, where there is a new generation of female pros (Alana Blanchard, Erica Hosseini, Megan Abubo, and more) who appear to do more bikini modeling than competitions. However, apart from being also "totally hot", they are all clearly excellent surfers too.

Personally I have no problem with any it - as long as true achievement in the sport is still recognised and rewarded. SBC is perfectly honest about being both a climber and model, and she appears to be pretty good at doing both, so good for her.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:

Ha! I bet you would. Better educated than the general populous, on average, maybe so better able to disguise negative aspects of their personality on line but let's not pretend being a climber makes you better than anyone else.

In reply to Michael Ryan:
Does anyone here seriously believe that someone who climbs that hard doesn't train damn hard? That it isn't their first and primary task every day?

When she came to the Exeter DWS I had not previously heard of her, but quickly joined other people in deciding she was more of a model than a climber. As I thought about this a bit more over the next few days though I realised two things. First she is actually a very strong climber which did not fit well into my derisory model. Second I realised that, without even knowing her or how she climbed, I judged her. I judged her not on her climbing, her personality, her drive to suceed or anything else. It wasn't even on the outfit she wore (which was nothing if not practical). I judged her because she was an athletic woman and wasn't afraid to hide it. I judged her not for wearing small clothing but for failing to hide her body - from us. Why didn't I apply the same judgements to the hordes of young men climbing that day (generally, like me, at a much lower standard)? I can't honestly remember if some guys climbed topless, but I'm sure I wouldn't have though twice about it.

If there is a problem at all, then that problem is us - the market that encourages, demands and exploits.

Personally if I thought I could make a successful living out of climbing by only doing routes butt-naked on live TV with dyed green hair in front of hordes of drooling women I would be on the rock faster than it would take you to ask if I was a climber or a model. Of course I'd probably do that anyway...

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


What's wrong with an arse? It's just some underlying bones, two major muscles covered in the usual layers of fat and skin. Unless you are sexualizing it in your head, but dealing with that is your problem - not the arse's.

I don't think women should be held accountable for men not being able to deal with women having female bodies.

In reply to Alun:

Disagree. A pic of a woman wearing (apparently) nothing but a fur coat (or down jacket!) and hat is sexual - it's a classic pose and the message is that she's available for sex. Woman takes off coat to reveal she is wearing skimpy but functional climbing wear and then proceeds to climb: this is not sexual - the message is that she's got better things to do than have sex with you! Same woman, same skimpy attire but draped over the bonnet of a car is sexual - the message is that if you buy the car then women like this will want to have sex with you.

Mick's point about over sexualisation of young people is very valid, but also applies to make things sexual when they aren't.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I'd let her fart in me snap tin

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree that the images may not be "sexualised", but you can't deny that men enjoy looking at them because she's totally hot and showing a lot of skin. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Take this first photo in the article:
http://eveningsends.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/10329798_104233706914822...

Yes, she is climbing, but she is dolled up, it's clearly a "setup modeling" shot and, yes, she looks totally hot in it. It's not sexualised, but it's definitely a shot designed to make you look at her as a beautiful human being, and not her climbing skill. It doesn't mean she's a bad climber, but we don't know.

(Incidently, I don't think it's purely a female thing, IIRC Sharma has done some "lifestyle" modeling focusing on his body and his looks).

In reply to andrewmcleod:

I agree with much of what you say but we mustn't forget that SBC seems to be fully aware that she is very pretty (see photo I link to, and other modeling shots in the article).

In reply to Tyler:

Maybe people who are better choose climbing?

In reply to andrewmcleod:

There is nothing at all wrong with arses, I occasionally use mine to talk out of.

It's not like all the shots are of her climbing in baggy shorts, she knows that photos of her arse will generate more attention on social media that's why she posts them. She is choosing to present herself in a certain way.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


Or maybe people with a love of the outdoors are better and choose climbing.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Been following this for a while now.

Good luck to SBC and to be honest I hope she makes a shed load of money.

Their seems to be a huge outcry from the climbing community that in someway she doesn't deserve to be where she is. That somehow she hasn't earned her right to have a climbing photograph taken becauce she's not crushing v12.

As far as i'm concerned she's a climber. She'll probably be a millionaire by 27. If not already. If I was able to, hell i'd do the same.

Perhaps some of the more prolific climbers should get themselves a decent publicist and climb on this bandwagon as a cash stream. With climbing as a hot topic in the mainstream press just now due to Dawn Wall, it's a good time to develop it. The climbing companies certainly dont have the cash to give .

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


Sometimes I think mine is more practiced at it than my mouth...

I agree that SBC knows what she is doing, and I have absolutely no objection to that. My facebook profile/cover photos show rather more of myself (and rather more of my arse as it happens) than SBC's facebook does (charity climbing calendar) but sadly it hasn't got me any sponsorship yet! I just believe that if people have an issue with the sexualisation of a person, then (barring overt sexuality, which this isn't) then the responsibility for that lies on those doing the sexualization, not those being sexualized.

'We' are buying this, after all... (albeit a very broad definition of we)

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


Is she? Maybe, but she's 20 years old. I wonder how much she understands of the impact that she has on a marketplace already setup to objectify pretty young girls. Is she knowingly exploiting that marketplace for her own financial gain, or are there others in her entourage who understand more clearly what the correlation is between their own cut of the sponsorship money and how much flesh she shows?

In reply to andrewmcleod:

But if she knows what she is doing (ie inviting sexualisation of herself in order to make money) then she has to take some (perhaps all or most) of the responsibility for the sexualisation and for the issues it raises.

In reply to planetmarshall:


She is 20, not 15.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Miley Cyrus is 2 years older. I'm not sure she knew what she was doing either.

In reply to planetmarshall:

My understanding is that her father is her manager.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


And he deserves shooting for "Achy Breaky Heart" !

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Billy Ray Cyrus manages SBC? That explains everything.

In reply to Robert Durran:


What sexualisation ? She is baring no more flesh than you get any athletics or swimming event. She is smiling, not pouting or looking coy or provocative. Attractive certainly, but we are hard wired to find healthy people attractive.

And if men can't look at female athletes and control themselves it is they that must take the responsibility, not the athletes.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


In which case why all the fuss (because there appears to be one)?

Answer: because the poses are designed to display her body and pretty face rather than to create the body tension, balance or whatever needed to climb stuff.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Interesting subject and debate. I have a 12 year old daughter and know how influential young women using social media (especially YouTube) can be to her. If this girl, while making money, can use that position of influence to inspire girls into more active lifestyles, then everyone is a winner.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


More pessimistically, is she inspires young girls to believe they are only of value to society if they bare as much flesh as possible to present themselves as sex objects for men, then everyone is a loser.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

It doesn't seem bad to me, she's making good use of what nature gave her. A few photos in nice places enjoying climbing seems a much nicer way to earn a living to climb more than me stuck in a office 5 days a week. If I could use my looks to go climbing I would but I can't. People might actually pay for me to sent up into the mountains if I started bouldering in just tiny shorts!

Is getting sponsors for being attractive (selling an image) any worse than people selling their soul when working in call centres?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Having now done extensive research by looking through the photos in the article, on facebook and on twitter (purely for research mind), then I would say that some of them are genuine (and hard) climbing shots, some are pure modelling, most are someone in between but none are sexualised.

If she were draped over the bonnet of a BMW then she would be appealing to middle-aged men who want to shag her, but as she is mostly modelling clothes then she is appealing to teenage girls who want to be like her.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Maybe, but why do they want to be like her? To conform to a sexualized stereotype perhaps?

In reply to planetmarshall:


I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Has anyone analysed her demographic?

I'm not sure whether she is "presenting herself as a sex object for men". She could just be showing-off her figure for whoever wants to look at it.

In reply to planetmarshall:

She's hardly Katie Price though.

Yes, as in the comment I quoted ages ago, there is a danger that other female climbers will be put under pressure by their sponsors to do more modelling and less climbing. I'm not saying there isn't an issue here.

However there are probably far greater dangers in sponsor pressure in the world of climbing/adventure sports than this. Clif Bars discouraging people from taking risks, Red Bull encouraging people to take too many. Actually how about Red Bull getting Danny McAskgill to ride round the playboy mansion - now that is treating women as sex objects.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Or because she's cool and pretty. I think people are attracted to and influenced by attractive people, whether male or female, and I wouldn't mind guessing that it was ever thus.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Is she cool? Only perhaps because of a manufactured stereotyped image of coolness.


Of course, which is why they can be dangerous if they actually lack substance.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sorry, but to describe someone showing a bit of bare flesh as "a sexualized stereotype" is the sort of absurd nonsense you usually only get from religious extremists

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It all depends on the context. I look at some of those photos of SBC and I think "sexualized stereotype, and, oh, she happens to be climbing". I look at photos of Shauna Coxsey showing the same amount of bare flesh and I think "awesome skill and strength, and, oh she happens to be attractive".

In reply to Robert Durran:

You're digging yourself a bit a of a deep pit here, I think.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Now you've done it.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

There is a load of claptrap in this thread.

Suffice to say, "I would













climb with her"

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Why?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I follow people on twitter for a while - if they post random stuff that makes me smile or informs me - then I keep following them.

Added Sasha DiGiulian for a while - she had to go, Red Bull this, Adidas that, BOOM this, grade that. Gone.
Added Hazel Findley - she's alright, puts some stuff up there I can relate and comes across well.
Added Shauna Coxsey - now she posts some fun stuff BUT has started harping on about Red Bull lately. I know she has to but at the minute, I'm starting to think she'll be unfollowed sooner than later. Promoting 'Diabetes in a Can'... I switch off.

Not that any of this actually matters to any of those climbers at all.

Sierra Blair-Coyle - still follow her. She doesn't go on about grades, posts random stuff and nearly always seem to be having fun, coming across as a positive person. Usually smiling. Couldn't care less about how she looks, she brightens my twitter feed and if she is promoting stuff, it's certainly not stuff that offends me or I even notice. Pretty sure I'm not in the demograph of Roxy.

Do I learn anything from her? Yeah. Be happy and let people know you're happy - the world has enough doom and gloom!

In reply to Robert Durran:


Because the judgements you present are purely arbitrary and, in the broadest sense, offensive. Bear in mind that many famous and very able climbers present an image of themselves that they have (obviously) worked on in that particular way. These issues are seldom as black and white as you suggest.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

All I am arguing is that the image SBC presents is a sexualized one. I don't think that is arbitrary. She is showing off her body for the sake of showing off her body.


Yes, of course. I'm not sure what that has to do with this particular case though

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

If these famous and very able climbers choose to present an image to the public it really shouldn't come as any surprise if the public judge them on the image they present, if you court publicity surely that comes with the territory?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

It's not just skin Chris, that is only part of it. It has a lot to do with poses and facial expressions. This is well documented and research has been done on it.

I do find it scary, being the father of an attractive 14 year old talented athlete (and being involved in marketing/advertising) that many grown adults are ignorant of the difference between climbers like Shauna/Mina/Hazel et al vs Sierra; all of them (Sierra included) are attractive, amenable, articulate and gifted. The difference is the way they present themselves.

Suffice to say, I talk to my daughter Felicity about this; and also her social media feeds are private; the image based ones are invite only.

It is also scary how ridiculously easy it is to find out where someone lives these days. There are a lot of weird people out there and also many who make scary and inappropriate comments online - See Sierra's Facebook feed for examples.

M

In reply to Michael Ryan:

>> I don't use Facebook


In that case shouldn't this be discussed on Facebook rather than polluting UKC with it?

This whole debate seems a complete non-issue. In answer to the question posed by the title she is both a climber and a model. Why is that such a difficult thing for people to understand?

I suspect it's jealousy of her popularity that is the real motive driving the discussion about her.

In reply to stp:

As I made clear Steve just above. Many find this an important topic to discuss, and this is the best place for it.

Not that in anyway will it cease, but younger people especially do need to be able to read the media as it is a big influence on their lives, and not all positive.

Best regards.

In reply to stp:


I really don't think it is. It is about role models, sexualisation, the power of the internet and lastly (and probably least) the image of climbing.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I see there are two things being discussed. One is personal about a particular climber-model. I actually think its a bit rude to discuss someone publicly like this. And giving them even more attention in this way might be exactly what they want. I, like most I would guess, would never have heard of Sierra was it not for the current media frenzy in the last few days about her Facebook success.

Thankfully UKC had the good sense to not include this as climbing news .

The second issue (role models, sexualisation etc.) which I can see from your above comment is a perfectly valid and actually a good and worthwhile topic can be discussed just as well without reference to any particular person at all. In fact it would be better since it would be clearer what the actual issue is though it should be in the Off-Belay section rather than Rocktalk. It's sad that this is the most popular recent Rocktalk topic when its not really about climbing at all.

The difference between Shauna/Mina/Hazel et al and Sierra is that the latter is a model who climbs and the former are professional climbers: amongst the best in the world. Lots of other celebs doubtless climb as well yet they're not seen as role models for the sport in anyway. Neither is the virtually unheard of Sierra.

I don't think climbers in general use other climbers as role models. Climbers tend to be very independent thinkers in my experience. Just because someone has steel fingers we're smart enough to see that this doesn't mean mean they are necessarily good or special in other ways. Though we might want to know the secrets of their success so we can improve our own climbing.

This guy, is a proper role model.

Sir Chris Bonington at 80 http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69473

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I think in a way she is playing both sides of the coin, to non-climbers she is a professional climber, with the implication that she must be very good, and to climbers she is a pretty girl who happens to climb.

If SBC was a world class climber she could end up on the cover of Sports Illustrated but the reality is that she has only done one V9 (and no V8s) outdoors, this is way way off the pace. I don't think many of her non-climber fans would be aware of that.

In reply to stp:


If someone has built a career out of facebook/internet public exposure, I don't think it unreasonable that this should be discussed on the internet.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Hmmm, maybe. I think if she's to be criticized personally in public it should at least be done somewhere where she will see it and can reply. This feels very much like talking behind someone's back.

And I'm still not sure what the 'this' is that we're actually discussing. What is it she's meant to have done? Exaggerated her climbing ability perhaps? Big deal. Loads of climbers do that. Got public attention through being a sexy model? Again so what? Loads do and many, many more aspire to.

What if there was a climber who also worked as a porn star. Would that give us the right to criticize them publicly just because we're climbers? I'm sure there are loads of climbers that do things I don't agree with but I wouldn't attack them by name on a public forum. I'd attack the type of work they do and say why I didn't agree with it.

In reply to stp:


But not many thoroughly combine the the two. It seems to be a new phenomenon.


Which is maybe why her role model status is being questioned.


If the porn was being filmed on portaledges it might.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The way I see this is that it is just another example of the vacuous social media/non-celebrity celebrity based culture in which we live. Thankfully you don't see too much of this nonsense on the crags of Chew Valley, it's mainly just weirdos.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


a) she was 11 FFS! what were you doing at 11? what outdoor grades? (British lads are just celebrating the youngest 8a at 17),

b) she was in the US Bouldering Team for 4 years.

c) you used a picture of her in Bouldering Essentials as an example of a competition climber! She's wearing a bra top and short shorts, why did you choose that image?

FYI The current British Women's Lead Climbing Champion has done nothing outdoors either but she's won it twice on the trot, who cares what she's done outdoors?

In reply to Michael Ryan:



Lots of criticism of him in the 60s and 70s for being too focused on commercial aspects, of sensationaling his ascents and effectively taking opportunities from other, more talented climbers. But he wasn't simply a climber, he was one of the first climbing slashes. Climber/photo journalist/author

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Is it just that she's somewhat successful in both modelling and climbing and so appears in the media for both things and thus her FB page highlights both parts of her life too?

It seems to me this thread, the Evening Sends article, 8a.nu and maybe Crux Crush are those responsible for her sudden fame in the climbing world. Before this I doubt few climbers had ever heard of her. It's the climbing media that are promoting her in the climbing world, far more than she could ever do herself.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


But I think he was always first and foremost a climber. He got into the other stuff so that he could finance the climbing life.

In reply to stp:


The whole "athlete model" thing. Posing in ludicrous positions on bits of rock.

It's like reading the letters page in High circa 1992 viz Isabelle Patissier.

I understand she is now old and races Ford Pumas, or saves donkeys or is dead. Who cares - try listening to a few climber girlies when they see a Huber.......

In reply to Michael Ryan:
So have we already had this, or if not, who's the one male Athlete Model?

SBC herself is just a bore. Jeez. I can't believe we're discussing her. The Kim Kardashian of climbing, and God knows every sport needs one of those, right?

jcm

In reply to Robert Durran:

If the porn was being filmed on portaledges it might.

'Clucking' springs to mind...

In reply to stp:

And don't forget yourself Steve.


I'm not sure you understand this medium with that comment.

This is an open forum, accessible by anyone, anywhere (virtually). Most are using their own names.

It is a public discussion and anyone can join in.

You can almost guarantee SBC will have read this thread and all the articles; she is a student of media; and more than likely her father will be reading too. It is in their interest to, as marketing is about perception and constructing a persona and a story.

She could if she wanted join in, but: that's not how this particular marketing works, there is no room for negative, cynical or sarcastic comments if you set yourself up as public figure, the advice is to get it all out there, stay on message with positive comments and do not interact in any critical discussion.

Apart from positive Q+A's on Tumblr Tuesdays and positive Yays on Facebook where the owner has editorial control of those discussions and can delete comments.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Hardly. Whymper, Mallory and Smythe decades (W almost a century) earlier combined climbing with engraving/photography/writing/lecturing.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

How many contributors who object to SBC's marketing manner can honestly say that they resist all musical presentation which comes with images? Its part of a modern trend - the popularity of music is based on images as much as musical content. And of course there are many other domains in which this is happening.

In reply to LeeWood:

No one objects to images as such. It is the nature of the images which is under discussion.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Exactly, but she does nothing more provocative than that which accompanies modern music

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Subjective rather than arbitrary I think and, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with him. I don't see them as offensive broadly or not. Certainly not to Shauna, if that's what the inference is.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Well yes I realise this is an open forum and in theory she could respond if she had first seen this and second really wanted to. Your assumption "You can almost guarantee SBC will have read this thread," is opposite to mine but if we're honest we have no idea which is true.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with your cynicism about SBC's motives because I know so little about her. And unless she actually does something significant in climbing I'm not remotely interested.

For me it seems like she has suddenly been thrust into climbing web space over the past week for absolutely no reason at all. I still have no idea why we're even discussing her.

My point in this is not about her at all. It's about us as climbers. Why is this non-story being bounced about climbing websites as if its important? And from all this publicity she'll probably be getting a lot more 'friends' on Fakebook.

If she's a model and is getting more work through having a tiny little bit of fame then I don't feel it's any of my business. And it doesn't seem to have anything to do with climbing either - certainly not to me.

In reply to Michael Ryan:
I blame Mallory for starting all this. The guy loved getting his kit off for photos.

In reply to stp:


Yes she has seen it, no she will not respond; for the reasons I outlined above.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Quick question pertaining to whether her image is "sexualised"

Google her name, click on images.

Would UKC deem any of the pics of her climbing, or in a climbing context, inappropriate for this site ?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

This is what the Daily Mail thinks: -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2890984/Model-beats-extreme-spine...


(Apologies in advance if this causes undue stress to certain UKC'rs - SBC and the Daily Mail in one foul swoop...).

In reply to LeeWood:


Indeed. This sort of low level sexualisation is almost ubiquitous in popular cuklture.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Of coiurse not. The degree of sexualisation does not cross that threshold.

In reply to stp:

Er, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. She is an adult according to the laws of the relevant countries and has chosen to get the maximum media exposure possible by the means of un-necessarily titilating pictures and deliberate dissemination of those pictures using a carefully calculated campaign employing the most modern of marketing techniques.


Quite agree, she is basically just embodying the age-old truth that sex sells, always has done, always will. If she freely chooses to engage in this (very) soft porn approach, I am not the slightest bit bothered by it. If people would pay me large amounts of money to sponsor me climbing in skimpy outfits and contrived suggestive poses, I would do it like a shot (if the price was right), unfortunately the market for me is very small indeed.

There has always been a puritanical disapproval of sex and sexuality, in Victorian times it used to be based on offence against the law of God and saving fallen women. Now it mostly comes from new puritans talking about objectification, role models and other pompous, high sounding moralising. The motive the same, a desire to regulate other people's sexuality (despite the very mild form being displayed here) and the overpowering fear of the puritan that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves.


Anyone has automatically the right to criticise anyone else, they don't need to be given it. How seriously third parties take the criticism is another matter.


I am sure there are a great many users of this forum who would definitely attack a Tory MP who happened to climb by name and in quite virulent and intolerant terms, much more so than has been applied to this girl. You seem to hint that you would attack a porn star for their work - why exactly, if it is consensual and non-exploitative, all the participants are adult, unless you are a puritan or a prude? May not be terribly edifying, but if adults want to do things that make other adults a bit queasy with their own bodies, that is up to them. For example, I find conspicuous tattoos much more offensive than some sort of sex show, also it will leave much more permanent damage to the bodies of the individuals concerned, but if they are adults, that is their choice, no matter how foolish I may think it to be.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes saw that - love the angle as well, the Mail are pros.

In reply to Simon4:

That's a good analysis.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Just in terms of role models....

My daughter was a roughty toughty till she started school and came home saying girls aren't meant to be strong. More disturbingly she started to not do what she could unless the park was empty of other kids. Ok, she was very young but I hated it, I hated that she avoided climbing cargo nets from underneath or sailing over the monkey bars.

I showed her lots of sports women, posted on here re climbing role models (throughout she climbed), nothing shifted her stance that girls 'shouldn't' be strong. Until we went to the circus!

Circus ladies with thongs up their ass cracks and feathers sticking out their heads! THIS, coupled with seeing they could and did USE their limbs and were clearly, unarguably strong, it was this that had her do a clear U'ey.

Stuff changes in steps and if this climber or model has managed at any level to be both then it's one hell of a step since I was a kid. I remember Duncan Goodhew (Sp?) and that there was a woman swimmer (the blonde) but not her name and she wasn't a model, I can remember Seb Coe and Zola Budd, but the latter was hated. The only things model's actually did that I knew of was starve themselves!

FWIW I think women, real women, need to step up and be the role models, get active, live. The school gates are a terrifyingly lonely place if you turn up in scruffy trackies smudged with chalk dust. I think it's down to us to encourage girls not rip them for attempting success in more than one place or not conforming to strictly adhered to rules regarding being a non conformist.

I have no clue why it would matter whether Sierra is a model or a climber first and foremost. I read nearly all the thread and still have no clue. If a climber also worked as a teacher would it create debate?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Can practically see up her flue.

In reply to winhill:

The shot in Bouldering Essentials is a great shot, hard to find good indoor photos and she demonstrating a very nice dropknee/twistlock .

In reply to all you sad t***ers having a go at Miss Blair-Coyle.

Ahhh didums does the sight of a pretty girl showing too much flesh make your poor little willies ache? Is it all too much for you?

I'm sure if you knew her personally, perhaps through climbing or maybe work you'd be on here defending her saying what a lovely fun girl she is and defending her right to model and climb as she wishes, but no, you morons don't know her and because you think she wiggles her ass a little it means she has no merit as a climber and everything she has achieved or may achieve in the future is because of how she looks.

Do you think if Mina, Leah, Alex and Shauna et al were to read your posts they would be saying "Ah thanks for all your support guys, that Sierra's such a bitch. We just can't compete with her in comps, she just wiggles her ass and gets extra points." No, they wouldn't be saying this about their friend, they'd be just laughing at you losers and thinking "Typical men feeling threatened by a pretty young girl."

Did we hear you all complaining when they all posed together for the CAC calender? No I don't think we did.

So shut up with you pathetic whinging and go home to your mummy's (where from the sound of you all, most of you still live).

Chris.

In reply to chris cleave:

There was a fair bit of discussion about it on here at the time. Many broadly supportive comments, some less so. Fair to say it was a wee bit controversial I suppose.


Coming across as quite the bellend yourself there Chris. Good work.

In reply to chris cleave:

There was actually quite an intelligent and adult discussion going on here until you came along.

It is more that there is an interesting debate about the issues her career path raises than that people are having a go at her.

In reply to Michael Ryan:
http://wendiferously.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/latest-athlete-model-uncovered...

http://wendiferously.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/how-super-does-superwoman-have...

In reply to Trenchgirl:

Right. And surely the objectification of nearly naked ladies for commercial climbing purposes is yet another indication of the deterioration of contemporary culture.

From Mountain Magazine, 1970 (one of many):

http://home.comcast.net/~e.hartouni/img/Mountain-13-02.jpg

In reply to FactorXXX:



I think the Mail article raises far more important questions than the questions over her career path.

In the first place how and why was that piece even written in the first place? She's didn't win the British Nationals and she's no where near as good as many British women climbers - one of whom has won World Cups this year.

Secondly how can she be twice US national champion and yet only climb V9? You have to be much better than that surely to win the US Nationals. Alex Puccio climbs V14. I'm guessing it might have been in the juniors, which is considerably less of a prestigious achievement, and I'm still sceptical about that.

Thirdly and most importantly is that she says: "I want to help climbing become a more mainstream sport". Why she would want to that is anyone's guess. Perhaps she feels her media persona needs a raison d'être and that's what it's going to be. This reminds me very much of the film 'Bruno'. If she wants to become a corporate media whore that's up to her. But if she's going to use the exposure she gets to try to push her own agenda in climbing I think that's controversial because she has absolutely no mandate from the climbing community to do so.

Finally the quote that says "She ... loves being an icon of the sport" tells me she is suffering from some serious delusions of grandeur. Most climbers have never even heard of her. As for the photos I don't find them controversial at all. They're mostly crap climbing photos and crap modelling photos. The bikini clad, highly posed climbing shots just shout 'completely fake' to me.

In reply to rgold:

This might not be entirely politically consistent but actually I find those ads less offensive than the message SBC is in danger of sending. Climbing magazines are not full of exploitative adverts featuring naked women and weren't even back in the 70s. The 'Edelrid ropegirl' adverts became infamous but seem to me to be pretty tongue in cheek (I don't think the word ironic was in common use back then). Whether you see them as a bit of harmless fun or disgusting sexual objectification, they were clearly reflecting a fantasy and were overtly advertising a specific product.

Now, I can't get too worked up about it but my impression from what I've seen is that SBC is the wrong side of the admittedly blurred line between an attractive female climber wearing whatever makes them feel comfortable and a calculating woman deliberately accentuating her sexuality for purposes not entirely relevant to her climbing or her sexuality.

And before Chris Cleave accuses me of living with my mum, I've climbed with quite a few women who, given the right circumstances and weather, would dress very, err, pleasingly. And very nice too, unless it was gritstone. The difference was that they weren't doing it to build their media profile.

In reply to stp:

That too.

In reply to stp:


News agencies, PR companies, freelancers, individuals feed a hungry media with news/sensational stories to attract readers - they can be quirky, amazing, wow, animals, wild weather....all have to have a certain angle. The angle with this story is beauty, sex, athleticism, overcoming injury to win comps.

The truth is always distorted in these stories, often exaggerated and quite often made up.

You need a primer on how this all works Steve.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I think we're in danger of being sexist from the point of view that many men on here seem to be under the assumption that women don't think about sex in the same way as men. Or that sbc is being exploited in some way. I'm sure she's more than aware what she's doing and is living a life most of us would enjoy. As long as she is in control of what is released about her, and it seems she is, then what's the issue?

Many women where I work climb in skimpy, tight, brightly coloured, clothes that some may think say: " Look at me."

Same as blokes climbing tops off imo. Let's be honest there isn't really any practical reason why a woman has to wear a crop top, or a man no top.

People seem to perform well enough in the world cups whilst wearing vests after all.

Women also sexualise men. Back porn is an often used phrase. I was coaching a woman the other day who said one of the reasons she got into climbing was because of the high percentage of guys with hot bodies and no tops on. I wasn't offended. Not because as a man I'm not downtrodden and imposed upon, but because she was clearly an independent, intelligent, woman who was having an honest conversation and acknowledging the fact she finds men sexy. Sadly she obviously wasn't talking about me as I don't climb with my top off and she was drooling over 2 lads with big guns and six packs.

Men climb tops off, women wear skimpy clothes. The whole idea that we shouldn't have a sexual thought about someone who is showing off their sexual features is ridiculous, of either sex. Neither is it insulting/degrading.

It won't be long until climbing advertisers cotton on more to the fact that sex sells for women too. Diet coke man anyone? total sexual objectification of a man innocently going about his living mowing the lawn. Poor guy.

In reply to Simon4:

Good post. Though I am an occasional Guardian reader... might mean you're going soft.

In reply to biscuit:


Yeah... a single example - and the one that is always brought up when trying to illustrate that sexual objectification of men occurs in the media ( I don't deny that it does ) - does not a good argument make, nor does the defence: "Well I'm not offended so it's OK".

SBC may be in control of her own image, she may not be. No one is arguing that you can't find images of her climbing in skimpy clothing sexy. The point is whether that image is something we want young girls in our society to aspire to - an image constructed basically for the gratification of men.

In reply to planetmarshall:


But is it? Or is it more aimed at young girls who might see her as a role model (the message arguably being that you need to doll yourself up to go climbing........... to attract or possibly for the gratification of men?). I really don't know which it is or which is less desirable (probably if it is aimed at young girls, though the fact that she is at least doing something active and healthy makes her preferable to many other such role models)

In reply to Robert Durran:


I agree as well. I'm finding myself wondering about what she might do next, once her looks and youth perhaps start to fade. That's not to judge her though, more it seems like a kind of a short term way to make a living.

At least top climbers can use their name to start a gear company with once they're no longer amongst the best, and use their know how and that of new top climbers to make sure it's good.

In reply to planetmarshall:
My defence wasn't that I wasn't offended so it's ok. It was that women also hugely sexually objectify men on a daily basis. I see and hear it every day at work. As long as it's balanced it's fine as we all do it.
I'm well aware of the, well founded, point that consistent portrayal of women as sexual objects by the media is a bad thing. That's the word though, objects. The diet coke guy was an object. I wasn't aware it was often used, I thought it up all by myself. Let's go for David beckham in underpants then. There are lots of examples I'm sure. All those Athena posters in the 80's and 90's. There were more aimed at women than men I reckon. Obviously all the pictures of fireman with no tops on rescuing kittens were respectful of the risks they took to rescue those kittens and they'd taken their tops off because they were hot from the fire. They were paid to look sexy. Obviously I am again aware that there is a huge imbalance in the media.
I just think we're being a bit disrespectful to sbc to assume the poor girl is making a mistake, being taken advantage of and harming the cause of equality. Maybe she's an intelligent women making use of what she's got while she can. Same as many athletes.
Sbc is not just an object though is she ?
She is a very good climber who also happens to be good looking. She seems to be using that to make money from us. I wouldn't have a problem with my daughter following her, but would need to explain not everyone wants to/can look like that. Same as id explain to my son that not everyone wants to/can look like the cover model on men's health magazine.

As to those asking what she will do when her looks fade; who knows?
Maybe she's a straight a student and will do very well as s human rights lawyer. Maybe she will become an entrepreneur and eventually gift millions to those less fortunate.
Why are people presuming she only has her looks just because that is what she's using at this moment in time ? That's what I find depressing.
Though I have to admit her q and a sessions don't seem to hold out much hope!

In reply to Michael Ryan:

She's wearing more than most women do at the beach, so what some people seem to be saying is that all women should be covered up.

No where have I heard that before?

In reply to krikoman:


Nobody is saying that.

You are completely and utterly missing the point.
Why do you think SBC has provoked this debate but, say, Shauna Coxsey has not?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I see a strong young woman with body confidence.

I don't see why everyone is so bothered.

In reply to marsbar:

Sadly "I see a strong young woman with body confidence." is probably why.

She's a 21 yr old kid, studying and hopefully accruing less of a student loan by using the assets she has. Personally I'm well impressed she doesn't appear to have had a boob job.

The baying would stop if she picked one thing and dumped the other - how sad is that if it's not what she wants?

In reply to flopsicle:


Yes, she is using her looks and her body to make money out of sexualizing herself (as many others do, but she is being discussed on here because she conflates this with climbing).

If she was accruing less of a student loan by using the assets she has to make a load of money out of prostitution would you be equally unjudgemental - it is really only a matter of degree. I merely ask out of interest; is there an acceptable line and, if so, where?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I notice someone suggested you should stop digging earlier.... I think you've just hit the inner core.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


If I'm digging it is just to see where others might draw a line (if any). Perhaps there shouldn't be a line drawn - I don't know.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm sorry but I think your question is inane, however, if a climber also offered their services as a prostitute then I cannot imagine worrying about the fact they do both.

Look, I'm female, a below par climber who ain't pretty - if I don't feel threatened I cannot grasp why there are men that appear to?

As I mentioned earlier, the actual role models that persuaded my young daughter women look great and are great strong, were circus acrobats with thongs up their cracks and feathers stuck out their heads! Showing her amazing climbing shots of women made no difference because SHE wanted to be glamorous - that's despite her being a bald orangutan by nature.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, she is using her looks and her body to make money out of sexualizing herself (as many others do, but she is being discussed on here because she conflates this with climbing).
If she was accruing less of a student loan by using the assets she has to make a load of money out of prostitution would you be equally unjudgemental - it is really only a matter of degree. I merely ask out of interest; is there an acceptable line and, if so, where?

She'a a climber, a student and a model.
I see it as more combining climbing and modelling, as opposed to blatant sexualisation.
As for the prostitution bit, she isn't though is she? What she is doing is not only legal, but is perfectly acceptable if you draw parallels with other sports and their use of models.
As far as I can tell, the only reason that there is a fuss is being made, is because she's somehow crossed some sort of sacrilegious line and shock, horror, gasp has angered a load of 'Real Climbers' who say that this isn't proper climbing, etc.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Personally I think look but don't touch is as good a place as any to draw a line. I wouldn't judge a sex worker, but nor would I want to be one. But actually I don't see her pictures as being sexual. She is showing off her body yes, but if I looked like that I would wear skimpy shorts. Judge me if you want! Its not about sex, its about looking good and being proud of that. Given that she appears to have a toned body from sport rather than being skinny from an eating disorder I think its good. Personally I think make up is a waste of time, but if it makes the girly girls more likely to try sport than sit on a sofa, that has to be a good thing. If sexy is redefined as looking good and being active and obviously enjoying life, that has to be better than sexy as some girl grabbing her boobs and looking at the camera.

In reply to Robert Durran:


SBC didn't provoke this debate, Bisharat did.

Just as Coxsey didn't provoke Redhead's stepford wives comments.

In reply to flopsicle:


I think a big part of the issue is the conflation of modelling/sexualisation with climbing. I agree that this discussion probably wouldn't be taking place if she was a model who happened to climb at weekends.


Who said that anyone feels threatened?

In reply to flopsicle:


I certainly don't feel threatened and I don't see why anyone else should.

I also see someone enjoying life and climbing.

It is the sexual posing to an audience of men that I am critical of.

Why?

If Sierra sets up herself as a role model to younger people, especially girls, it normalises sexual posing and that is not healthy to young girls, in fact it some cases it can dangerous and even life threatening.

I do find it scary, being the father of an attractive 14 year old talented athlete (and being involved in marketing/advertising) that many grown adults are ignorant of the difference between climbers like Shauna/Mina/Hazel et al vs Sierra; all of them (Sierra included) are attractive, amenable, articulate and gifted. The difference is the way they present themselves.

Suffice to say, I talk to my daughter about this; and also her social media feeds are private; the image based ones are invite only.

It is also scary how ridiculously easy it is to find out where someone lives these days. There are a lot of weird people out there and also many who make scary and inappropriate comments online - See Sierra's Facebook feed for examples.

Anyway SBC is now over 20 and a grown up and it is of course her choice, but I do think she and her handlers are irresponsible projecting such a sexualised image combined with climbing.

PS., I thought the CAC calendar was great.

In reply to FactorXXX:


No, I don't think that is the case and certainly not the main issue being discussed; it is about sexualization and role models.

In reply to winhill:


What a daft comment!

In reply to Robert Durran:

unjudgemental

Yes, why should anyone judge that career choice, if it's of their own free will and something they've chosen to do it certainly doesnt, of itself, cause harm. If on the other hand a person is doing it because it's the only way they can see to get by then I might be critical of a society that puts them in that situation but still not of the individual.



Well, it's a matter of many degrees, especially as there seems to be some deabte as to whether what she does is sexualised at all. Let's face it she is closer to the role model the BMC backed #thisgirlcan campaign is trying to promote than some muscly weather beaten mountaineer you seem to think women's climbing should be represented by

In reply to Tyler:

No. If it needs representing, it should be represented by all types of climber, judged by what they do rather than what they look like.

In reply to Simon4:
If she is really that hard nosed about using her body to sell I feel sorry for her. Call if feminism, prudery or whatever you want she wont make many friends in her peer group if that is true. My guess though is she hasn't really thought it through and will regret it. Modern feminism has many variants with some wide ranging views but despite your dishonest picture, I cant think of any that don't embrace sexuality and as such are not puritanical in the slightest; things like objectification, exploitation, power based coercion are not liked by feminists because they demean individuals and foster inequlity (unless used ironicly). Your porn example is equally dumb and simplistic: sure some women make clear conscious decisions to take part but there is pretty clear evidence most do not. Some feminists support some forms of porn but even in this I do wonder how many takers you would find if they could get paid as well keeping their clothes on.

What the link is to a Tory MP is escapes me, but I guess it fits your mad ranting libertarian conspiricy therories nicely. Even the tories these days say they believe in equality for women (the key tenet of feminism) and this government are to be congratualted with some progressive moves they have made in law (especially gay marriage); quite brave really given the ambivalence of the party membership.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Or a female cyclist who modeled, or a heptathlete who modeled.... or even the Huber brothers camping it up!

As far as I can tell she's a model who's into some adventure sports, including climbing. If she does cross the line in terms of sexulisation than she's finished in terms of serious sponsorship (or big paying photoshoots), as any of the above would be.

In reply to Tyler:
Moff gets promoted to an extent as a role model by the BMC. She isnt a bikini clad 21 year old. Neither are numerous other older or below top performing women involved in the organisation who appear from time to time on marketing material or events. The 'angle' is they love climbing, scrambling and hill walking as part of a sadly under-represented group that form half of the population (and hence potential membership).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Exactly, and SBC is one of those types. Believe it or not there are young women out there for whom painting nails, putting on makeup etc are important. They also might dress scantily and they are not all doing it for the gratification of men, that's just the way they are and for that type of climber SBC makes an excellent role model. There might be (let's call them) girly girls who have never considered climbing because of its overtly macho image who look at SBC and think 'she's just like me, so maybe I could go climbing too' whether you think that's a good thing is an entirely different debate but it does mean that not everyone will look at SBC as a sex object.

In reply to Offwidth:
I've no idea who moff is so not sure what your point is but if it is 'there are all sorts promoting climbing' then I agree, see my post above.

In reply to Tyler:


Only if you include "model clmber" alongside "sport climber", "alpinist", "boulderer" etc.


So do you really think SBC is doing it just because that's what she does and with no regard to promoting an image aimed at men, young girls or any other group?

In reply to Tyler:


That may be true and may, arguably, be a good thing.

It would be interesting to know what group or groups SBC actually sees as her target "audience" and also which actually are her "audience".

In reply to Tyler:
If what you say is true (I'd belive it over the conscious line) she is naive and being mildly exploited, so that isnt really the best of role models. If you, really care about nails, climbing is simply best avoided but most women who use nail varnish are hardly nail obsessives or anti-feminist by nature. I guess as, lets say, a 'boyie boy' you might be forgiven the distinction that feminists may care about their appearance without it becoming politically problematic and wearing sports clothing when actually climbing isn't in itself risking mild exploitation.

I guess you need to be interested in the BMC to know Moff: she is the Peak area secreatry, the first woman on their guidebook committee and co-editor of Froggatt.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I think this is a big factor:
"I do find it scary, being the father of an attractive 14 year old talented athlete..."

Honestly? Stop being scared - you've done a good job and have a healthy successful teen. She'll make some terrible choices - who doesn't, but if she did pose in shorts it wouldn't make her a prostitute. That said I did drop my load when my daughter at 4/5 stopped climbing in the park, I'm not saying that to score a point here, I posted how worried I was here and looked for some female climbing role models (as she loved climbing), it didn't work. My worry didn't work, my wish to bend the world to make it easier didn't work - sequins and bottoms on show while flying through the air worked!

Obviously I'll be panicking over every detail when mine's a teen - I know it, but that doesn't make it sensible and it can back fire. If you lay the choice to your daughter with no mid ground, no allowance to be sexy and proud of it, she might not end up choosing what you'd prefer. Of course if it isn't so black and white there's more scope to grow and find an individual path that suits.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, I don't think that is the case and certainly not the main issue being discussed; it is about sexualization and role models.

I really don't see much sexualisation going on to be honest. All I see, is an attractive young female climbing. Obviously, some people might find the pictures 'stimulating', but there is so much similar imagery out there, then singling out one female in one sport is a bit farcical and hints to me that it is very much because it's to do with climbing as opposed to anything else.

In reply to Robert Durran:


"Sexualising herself" WTF!! She might just be wearing cloths she likes / feels comfortable in. If she wasn't a climber but the photos were taken in a climbing setting would this be OK?

As for conflating, really!! what do you suggest, that she stops doing one to suit you, or anyone else that seems to think they have aright to tell her what she should be doing?

As far as I'm concerned there are a load of people poking their noses in where it's not required.

Too many f*cking busy bodies here who should probably be looking at their own actions.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Another daft comment!

She promotes herself as a climber/model and UKC is a climbing website. That is why is is perfectly natural to be discussing her, rather than, say, a kayaker/model, on here, and to be discussing her here rather than on, say, a sumo wrestling website.

In reply to krikoman:


She is cashing in on her looks and her body. Maybe that's fine, but she's undoubtedly doing it.


Then she would just be a model, not a climber model. Again maybe fine, but she wouldn't be being discussed on here.


It is not a matter of being a model who happens to climb, it is just that: conflating them and promoting that image which makes her an interesting case and why she is being discussed on here.

In reply to Robert Durran:

She promotes herself as a climber/model and UKC is a climbing website. That is why is is perfectly natural to be discussing her, rather than, say, a kayaker/model, on here, and to be discussing her here rather than on, say, a sumo wrestling website.

That pretty much reinforces what I've said. The only reason that people are getting quite so passionate about this, is that the 'real world' has filtered it's way into climbing and some people don't like it.
I can't really see the point in making an issue of perceived sexualisation and role models in the climbing world, when it's all so prevalent elsewhere.
Additionally, she's a by far better role model (if she even is), than the likes of Miley Cyrus, etc

In reply to FactorXXX:


The very fact that it is so prevalent everywhere and that it undoubtedly raises important issues is why it is worth discussing. So why not here?


I'll grant you that.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Why not?

The climbing world as a group can make a difference and if discussion of this subject makes more people aware that is a positive thing, and it will I can assure you.

I think it is very healthy, for people of all ages to be able to read and deconstruct the media that is thrown at them. To understand what it is saying to them rather than being passive consumers.

Thankfully the climbing companies didn't embrace the Blurr model of advertising a few years ago.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=114

The climbing media to their credit have also been restrained, with the odd dalliance, despite the fact, yes the fact that a scantily clad girl in a provocative pose can increase sales: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=112

In reply to Michael Ryan:




I agree.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Why not?

To be honest, I don't actually see the photo's of Sierra Blair-Coyle as being at all sexualised. Maybe that's why I think there is a lot of fuss about nothing?

In reply to FactorXXX:



And that is where the problem is. Sexualised images that do influence young people and often negatively can't often be recognised by many as they have become normalised.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Maybe we have different understandings of the word or different thresholds for its use. To me there is no doubt that SBC is using her looks and body to attract attention (either from men or as a role model for girls) and I would call that sexualisation.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Just because it's prevelant elsewhere doesn't mean we should let in engulf climbing too. Surely it's a good thing that it isn't prevalent in climbing, that climbing is more a meritocracy based on your ability in the sport? (I realise this is being eroded, e.g. 5.10s dropping of all atheletes without a blog/video/twitter account etc anyway but it sadens me, despite maybe being inevitable).


That's a bit like saying you're a better human being than Piers Morgan, hardly a compliment!

In reply to Robert Durran:


It might have something more to do with the observer, than the subject.

Looking through your eyes , it would seem the swimmers are sexualising the beach / swimming.

In reply to FactorXXX:


It's not the only reason. However, I think many people see climbing, quite understadably, as a refuge from all the detritus of the "real world".

In reply to krikoman:


Absurd bollocks.

FFS You really just don't have any grasp whatsoever of the issues being discussed here do you?

In reply to Robert Durran:



Absurd bollocks, apparently.

Though I did think we were taking about a woman being able to make her own mind up about what she climbed in. Still what do I know, you obviously know what's sexually alluring to you.

In reply to krikoman:


Nope and to a degree yes.

There are several degrees which have been defined by several organisations..

.....pouting, scantily clad, showing cleavage (all types), leg position, submissiveness, etc etc...

Google it if you are interested.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Hang on a mo, aren't you the fellow who believes that some photos are not natural but that others, ones that show mountains as being 4 inches high, depict the view as it really was?

In reply to krikoman:


OK. I shall spell out the blindingly obvious one last time:

She is not just climbing. She is consciously posing, using her looks and her body to attract attention to herself.

In reply to felt:


I think you will find it is a bit more complicated than that - you could go and re-read the relevant threads if you want.
Anyway, I can't quite see the relevance here!

In reply to krikoman:
Here's a list of negatives of how the increased sexualisation of images in the media can effect young people.

• impede children’s development of a healthy body image

• affect children's self-esteem

• affect aspects of children’s cognitive and emotional development

• impact upon children's mental and physical health and wellbeing (including by the potential development of eating disorders, depression and ‘appearance anxiety’)

• affect how children conceptualise femininity and sexuality, and gender and sexual roles

• contribute to or provoke sexual harassment (or ‘sexualised violence’) in schools and workplaces

• affect educational achievements for girls and lower their aspirations.

It is particular bad in the USA where you have things like child beauty pageants: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/22/beauty-pageants-childr...

In reply to Robert Durran:


I get it..... she's a brazen hussy who need a bunch of middle aged men to put her straight!

Very male thread this.... I think the best points, and a welcome dollop of common sense have come from a woman and Mick hasn't even replied.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Because what's being discussed here is clearly the pre-cursor to the inevitable child climbing-model beauty pageants that will follow...

In reply to Robert Durran:

"She is not just climbing. She is consciously posing, using her looks and her body to attract attention to herself."

Person poses for photo in a way that makes them look good shocker!!!

Give it a rest guys, it really isn't a big deal.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


But in America they have massive hangups about nudity altogether, you can't show an arse crack male or female without it being pixelated. So I don't thin hte US is a good example.

What about naturists in France / Germany / Holland / Sweden ?

If she was wearing some of what she's wearing in an inappropriate place then I can see some of the points being relative, but what she is wearing is appropriate for what she's doing. It's like saying women should cover up when DWSing instead of wearing bikinis.

I happen to think there is too much flesh around and too much sexualisation of children, but I don't think it's the case here.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I thought the discussion was about conventions.

In reply to krikoman:


Dearest - the USA is the best example with its puritanical hypocrisy.

Anyway, I blame it all on Texas: Universal Royalty® Miss Texas Beauty Pageant for babies, toddlers and teen pageants for all ages. http://www.universalroyalty.com -

.....which is only one state over from SBC's home state Arizona.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So what?

Incidentally the closest masculine stereotype for comparison I can think of is the 'grizzled manly mountaineer', yet I don't think men get criticized for selling their image in this way?

Every single sponsored climber is selling their image, after all...

In reply to Robert Durran:


I had a quick look at her Facebook page - most of the climbing shots (rather than the pure modelling bits) just look like someone climbing to me. They don't look particularly more pose-y than the normal sort of photos people take while bouldering.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I think you'll find that the discussion is a bit more nuanced than that.

In reply to munro:




But most people don't systematically do it as a career.

In reply to Robert Durran:


By detritus you mean anyone who doesn't think like you. Climbing is part of the real world, it is normalised, becoming main stream, call it what you will. There are some good things about that (climbing walls, cheaper rock boots, lots of free videos to watch) as well as bad.

In reply to Robert Durran:


What, a fifty year old teacher from Scotland has different outlook to a college girl from the US? I don't believe it but I suppose it could go some way to explain why you disagree with what she's doing. I'm trying to think of way of introducing the Taliban to the argument without invoking the modern day equivalent of Goodwin's Law

In reply to Robert Durran and the rest of you still having a go at Miss Blair-coil.

Of course sensible debate about the sexualization of young women is worth of debate but what the hell is your problem with her? She's not climbing topless or doing kiss and tell stories to a tabloid newspaper, in fact she's doing nothing indecent or illegal at all, it's just in your sad minds that she is.

I bet if your girlfriend, wife, sister or daughter was a good enough climber to enter comps at her level and so be worthy of sponsorship you'd be justifiably proud of her and would be defending to the hilt her right to accept the sponsorship even if part of it was because she was very photogenic rather than because of her actual climbing ability.

And are you telling me you've never ogled a pretty girl at your local climbing wall?

Jesus guys and I though it was just the religious nutters that had a problem with girls dressing how they want.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

And that is where the problem is. Sexualised images that do influence young people and often negatively can't often be recognised by many as they have become normalised.

Are the photo's of Sierra Blair-Coyle anymore sexualised than other female climbers though?
Same level of exposed flesh, same type of body position, etc.
The only possible difference is that she is a model, she wears make up and smiles. In fact, she isn't the only female climber that has similar photo's widely available on the Internet, as a quick Google will quickly show.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's not the only reason. However, I think many people see climbing, quite understadably, as a refuge from all the detritus of the "real world".

Only last week, everyone was enthusing about the Dawn Wall project being climbed. I seem to remember that there was a bit of a media circus about it. Like it or not, climbing is no longer the preserve of Ron Hill wearing weirdoes...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yeah but that was ok because TC and KJ weren't so damn smiley

In reply to munro 'n' Factor:

You've both got it, it's the smile. Climbing is meant to be well 'ard, and you're supposed to frown or at worst look nonchalant. People just don't like smiling climbers and come up with all sorts of spurious nonsense to justify their diapproval, including saying it's a bit more nuanced than that (as indeed the argument ran in the naturalism vs HDR debate). You find just the same attacks on Maurice de La Tour in the 18th century.

In reply to chris cleave:

I hit like then sighed with relief....

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Shouldn't we be more worried about this shit?

http://omeleto.com/200170/

In reply to krikoman:



That's a great little video, and absolutely.

In reply to krikoman:
Yes, much more worried and I think this should be taught in schools and by every midwife:
https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/006/923/Adolph,%20K.,%20Mondsc...

"Mothers of girls underestimated their performance and mothers of boys overestimated their performance.
Mothers’ gender bias had no basis in fact. When we tested the infants in the same slope
task moments after mothers’ provided their ratings, girls and boys showed identical levels
of motor performance."

In reply to flopsicle:

I saw that on TV, it was awful to watch.

In reply to marsbar:

There are much more awful things to watch right now in the world news. It's fantastical to me that in the context of things that matter people are still prattling on here with an affected prissy piousness about a peccadillo.

In reply to stp:


This (again FFS!) demonstrates Bisharat's duplicity. He mentions V9 twice in that article but fails to contextualise it by admitting that she was aged 11 at the time. It's impossible that he was unaware of this and her other achievements.

At the time this must have been a near (if not actual) world class achievement and now you and Bisharat and a few others are holding it against her! ( I don't know if Ondra recorded bouldering but his other grades say she might have been a year behind him). It's an awful distortion of the truth. True it's since been eclipsed by the handful of girls that are now bouldering with V grades that match their age (Ashima beat Puccio to V14 when she was 13, Raboutou and Puccio hit V13 in the same month, but Raboutou is only 13). Puccio is also 7 times US bouldering champ, so it's a tad harsh to say you're crap if you can't beat someone with that type of record.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Do you not understand that "because there are other bad things we should give up caring about everything else" is no way to live.

Cringeworthy if it suits you better than awful.

In reply to marsbar:

Yes, cringeworthy is a lot better.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

To be fair Mick, it has been going on for a long time. I mean you would really want to do a route in Mali in a swimsuit and skimpy shorts? youtube.com/watch?v=N70DLM8Az_8&

And as for Isabelle P. Well 'woof, woof'. http://fcorpet.free.fr/Denis/M/Grimpeuses/Isabelle-Patissier-Gd-surplomb.ht...

'Sexualisation'? Didn't start with Sierra Blair-Coyle. Maybe its just that they've done more on grit than her?

In reply to Robert Durran:




You need to read the article again.

Bisharat fancies himself as a self-appointed arbiter of Authenticity. The reason he has very cheaply deceived by omission regarding her climbing achievements is simply a desperate attempt to strengthen his hideously weak case that she lacks authenticity. He knows he's doing this via a series of cheap shots, that why he makes two, oh so cutesy references to himself as a pompous fartbag, it's a disarming technique.

He's done this before with his Sport Climbing vs Bolt Clipping little rantette, it's just an OCD induced fetishisation of what A Real Climber should be, enjoyed by people who need to introduce thick black lines around the Other in order to achieve their own validation.

There's no need for Bisharat to do this by being deceptive about her achievements but that's the route he's obviously chosen.

As a polemicist he needs people to take part in the debate, he doesn't want them asking what the point of the debate is in the first place.

Mike Ryan and yourself have then used this deception, this dislocation from authenticity, to use CPR in an attempt to revive Mick's dead hobby horse that he still insists on flogging.

In reply to winhill:

Enjoyed that winhill.

Now that was a good deconstruction of motives; still off the mark but thoughtful.

Bisharat tackled a subject well that many where thinking about but avoided writing about like the plague - the typical response these days for anything remotely critical is to be labelled 'haters' which is far from the truth.

In reply to andyathome:

I think I have that French book somewhere Andy; profiling all the top women climbers.

Yes, it has been going on for quite some time.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I know Gordon, I can't make up my mind whether to go to Syria to fight against ISIS, join a protest group against fracking in Lancashire or try to solve the erosion of middle class power by the declining wages of the social professions and the rise of the business/financial elite.

Are you a passive news consumer or do you do something constructive to help the world be a better place?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Come on Mick, the evidence for this is homeopathic strength, in the last decade we've had 4 government reports covering child sexualisation and they're established the square root of f*ckall.

This is what one female academic (Professor of Media and Cultural Studies) said about Gordon Brown's effort:

I had no great hopes for Linda Papadopoulos’ Sexualisation of Young People Review and it didn’t disappoint...

The above criticisms of Papadopoulos’ report should not be read as a diminution of the real social evil that is domestic or more generalized violence against women, but this review contributes nothing to our understandings of those problems. Moreover it fails to illuminate anything substantive about the ways in which sexual themes are components of myriad media forms which young people are encountering and seeking out. It has nothing useful to say about the ways in which children and young people might engage or participate in the contemporary media landscape, sexual or not.

Cameron then succumbed to pressure and in a move worthy of Sir Humphrey himself, appointed the CEO of the (right wing, Christian) Mother's Union to produce the (Reg) Bailey Report into the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood. Cameron addressed the shouty concerns of mumsnet and the precious parent brigade whilst simultaneously ensuring that the report would be regarded as useless by every academic and civil servant and could not therefore be used to inform policy.

The Americans have repeatedly tried it, the Australians have had several goes and the biggest problem, especially for the Psychology based studies, is that there just isn't a methodology to support the conclusions that people hoped they would be able to report.

If you look at what she is wearing and think about the motivations of the advertisers I don't think it has actually got anything to do with climbing. She's not posing in the hope male climbers go and buy Goretex coats - she's doing it to sell the Roxy clothes she is wearing to women. The clothes are the product, climbing is just a backdrop.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Agree entirely on the negatives, but I challenge you again to find a pic of SBC that is sexualised.

A pic of a women wearing athletic gear, in an athletic context, is not sexualised. It's entirely natural. And if she smiling, that's entirely natural too. The problem lies not with the model but with the critic, telling the woman to cover herself up for fear of providing irresistible stimulation to the male viewer.

In reply to Tyler:

No, a different outlook to the poster to whom I was replying - I thougt that was obvious.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Chris honestly there's freakin loads of them and the videos.


Exactly. We aren't talking about them.


Nope. The problem is with the viewer (and there's quite a few who have written on this thread) who is so desensitised to sexualised images of young people that they think they are normal.

And I'm no puritan I can tell you.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Kids are getting older younger, this has an acronym, KAGOY that was coined by marketers, it also has another marketing term, "age compression" where marketing messages and products originally designed for adolescents and young adults are targeted to younger kids. In Born to Buy, an analysis of modern marketing to teens, tweenies (7 to 12 year olds) and younger children the author Juliet B. Schor recounts a story of a third grade teacher (8 year olds) who asked her class what they knew about Mexico, six or seven hands were raised, "That's the place where MTV's Spring Break takes place!".

For those who haven't seen it, the program glorifies heavy partying, "bootylicious girls, erotic dancing, wet T-shirt contests, and binge drinking.

Abercrombie and Finch (a youth clothing retailer) came under fire for selling thong underwear to seven to fourteen year olds. The World Wrestling Federation sells action figures recommended for ages four and above that include a male character with lipstick on his crotch.

Then there's the Britney Spears/Miley Cyrus bare midriff factor that speaks very loudly to young girls. Whilst girls have always enjoyed dressing up like mommy, it does get a little worrying when you get four year olds grinding their hips like Britney Spears, when the isles of department stores are filled with off-the shoulder t-shirts and low-slung jeans that are tailored to fit three year olds.

Modern marketing think tanks and their closet-peeping research methods purposely expose kids to fashion, glamour, style, irony and popular music in every aspect of their young lives, from cereal boxes to teen magazines like Seventeen which is read by one in every two of American female teens.

Studies have shown that many of the images in Seventeen, as well as being sexualized, show women in subordinate poses, a bashful knee bend and a lowering of the chin.

Then put a man in a position of power, indifferent to all but his preoccupation with his own personal material well being and sexual pleasure – with a girl trying to attract his attention, women subordinate to men, a clear message that the female body is a sexual object, a concept of femininity that is behind the times even in the hazy theory of girl power feminism.

In reply to Michael Ryan:




She's twenty years old, how old do you want her to be? Or do you think she needs another year to be able to vote?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


No. Not passive. By talking on an internationally accessible website one is not being passive. Also, occasionally I talk to a relative of mine, a member of the cabinet who is directly involved in these matters. (Seriously).

In reply to Michael Ryan:

.. Also I find it rather offensive that you call me a passive consumer, when you know perfectly well (I think) that I've been an active creator all my life, and that my first book, in particular, that was bought by thousands, laid out a rather strong code of conduct about the way we as walkers and climbers should care for our mountain environment.

In reply to Chris Cleave:

Yours and others' misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I and others have said is getting tedious; an interesting and reasonably intelligent discussion has been reduced to some real absurdity, so here is a summary for you of what I actually think before I bow out:

I have nothing personal against SBC; I can understand why she is making the most of what she has (some climbing ability and very good looks), but her self promotion/career based significantly on her looks does raise issues (her systematic use of posed photos is NOT the same as others' occasional ones). She is clearly projecting an image lagely based on her looks and her body (I would say that that is sexualizing, but others may choose another word - it is what it is. And no, it is not the same as other climbers appearing scantily clothed in some photos because that happens to be what they are wearing; not all bare flesh is sexualizing). If her main target audience is young girls, then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether or not she is a good role model; yes, her healthy lifestyle and her climbing might be positive, but if the message coming across is that you need a perfect face and body to do the stuff she does, then it might be negative. If her target audience is men then I think that clearly also raises issues; the debate about objectification of women by men isn't exactly new.

Now there are obviously other SBC's in many walks of life, including activities and sports, but this one is a climber using climbing as the stage for her promotion and that is why she is being discussed on UKC. The issues are quite complicated and certainly not clear cut and peoples' views will differ but there certainly are issues and it should be possible to discuss them sensibly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

In other news could anyone tell me if the crotch shots on show here are sexualised or not?

youtube.com/watch?v=D6yCi_2ExtM&

I'm very confused after this thread - I'm not sure whether there is a party in my pants or an angry mob...

In reply to Removed User:


Well I'm looking forward to someone trying to tell us it's got nothing to do with her showing off her body for the sake of it and that it's all about having fun bouldering in whatever she happens to be wearing.

Yesterday I took a bunch of fifteen/sixteen year old girls to a climbing wall,some for the first time. They enoyed themselves. Perhaps some of them have found a healthy activity they will sustain. Maybe one or two of them have body self image issues - I don't know. Would I encourage them to watch this video? Would their parents approve of me showing them this video? I rather doubt it (and that is setting aside concerns about the opinion of me that they or their parents might form of me for watching it myself!).

In reply to Removed User:

I'm very confused too. I haven't been able to follow it at all closely because of other work, but Robert's own summary doesn't help me much. I really haven't got his message, what his real gripe is, wherein lies the harm, wherein lies the shock value. It's as if he's never heard of modelling. (Which is for the most part healthy, because it promotes the idea of people looking after themselves, not getting obese, trying to look good, live healthily, etc etc - I can't see the harm in that. If people get anorexic, that's their problem. Yes, that's a serious problem, but it's not what we're talking about, or rather what Robert is talking about.)

And this word 'sexualizing', that you have rightly homed in on, is just so peculiar. Fact of life: nature is (by nature! - pardon the tautology), very, very, very 'sexualising'. Robert loses me completely when he says that it's 'perfectly reasonable' when young girls are the target, because he seems to be arguing against himself ('our adult ideas are shit but it's fine to brainwash children with the same set of values'?) Is he really in a fight with what is natural to us, what we are by nature? As I say, I'm lost. Someone advertising their looks? … Well, most car commercials, featuring young guys driving ludicrously overpowered cars like maniacs, are about a thousand times more shocking to me … because I think they really are dangerous.

Everyone in our culture 'advertises their looks'. Fact of life. Even old climbers, when it comes to type of beard, etc. So they look attractive and interesting, and even (shock, horror) perhaps a tiny bit sexy. What on earth is so wrong with that? Seems fine to me. All it amounts to, at bottom, is people doing their best rather than bumming out.

Compared with real social problems, like racism, this hang-up is absolutely nowhere, IMHO. As I said earlier, I'm having a real problem pinning down what his real gripe is. What it smacks to me of is something far more sinister, having more of the character of an ancient, deep-seated and very unhealthy religious puritanism, which as done so much real harm in the past. … And we now see new forms of such crazy puritanism sprouting up in other parts of the world.

Chill out, I say. Ease off. Enjoy, appreciate the beautiful and the harmless, and what may perhaps even be healthy and beneficial.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Sorry Gordon. but I'm struggling to see how any of that relates to anyhing I have said.

Anyway, of course as sexual animals we live in a world pervaded by sex. And we all try to look our best sometimes. But, for teenage girls, growing up and finding their way in this world, bombarded daily by sexual images, perhaps just finding in climbing something healthy which they enjoy and which gives them some confidence, is SBC, as portrayed in that video above, really a good role model?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

What I meant was slobbing out rather than bumming out. I wrote it very fast.

In reply to Robert Durran:


"If her main target audience is young girls … then it might be negative." That section.

In reply to Robert Durran:


PS. Please, then, explain what you mean, if I've got it wrong.

In reply to Robert Durran:

PS2. You're making this huge mistake, IMHO, of worrying about what people do with their bodies rather than what people do with their minds. All the really big problems in the world are the result of abuses of the latter. … imho

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



I think I have just expanded on that in my last two posts (one posssibly edited and expanded since you read it).

Of course, an alternative view might be that teenage girls are so steeped in images of unobtainably perfect bodies and beautiful faces that being shown that these are not incompatible with something positive and healthy like climbing is a good thing......... however, I am in no doubt that a climbing role model who can climb just as well, but is phsically just a little less idealised would be preferable.