The WWE, real wrestling at it's best, was cleared in a sexual harassment case:

In reply to:

---

Wrestling Outfit Cleared in Harassment Case

A federal jury in Brooklyn cleared Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Entertainment of sexual harassment yesterday, rejecting the claims of 6-foot-2, 230-pound Nicole Bass.

Bass, a frequent guest on Howard Stern's radio show, wrestled for the WWE in 1999. During that time, Bass alleged, she was subjected to numerous sexual "indignities."

WWE lawyer, Jerry McDevitt, ridiculed the notion that any WWE star wrestlers had tried to sneak a peek. "There isn't one person, who works at the WWE who would risk their dream job to walk in the locker room, and see her naked, " he told the jury.

---

I only watch WWE if I am visiting one of my friends who is addicted to it, but I try to avoid her house when it is on. The few times I have watched it, it is obvious that women are only on there as sexual objects to be part of the crowd draw. Any woman who gets a job with the "company" should be able to see what she is getting herself into, simply by watching tapes of past shows.

In reply to:

---

Wrestlers can and do get it hurt. They put their bodies on the line every time they enter the ring.

---

So it's just glorified fighting for the entertainment of the masses.

Sheesh - and we think we live in a civilised society?

That's just sad.

I read some of it on wrestlezone and I'm surprised that Nicole Bass didn't win the case! I had a feeling Nicole wasn't going to win though, trying to go up against Mr. McMahon and the WWE itself. Anyone who tries to sue them won't have a chance of winning! Excpet for the World Wildlife Federation!

I realize that there are definate risks of injury and even death, but it is choreographed ahead of time. It isn't like other sports where the outcome isn't already known ahead of time. And I also realize that the men are ogled, too. What I should have said is that anyone, male or female, who takes a job with WWE should expect some hassles if they are going to play a part that requires very little clothing, seductive movements, etc. Maybe I am just looking at it the wrong way, but I feel that if you portray yourself as a bimbo, people are going to treat you as a bimbo. I think a man or woman is alot more attractive when they aren't overplaying it. The women of the WWE could wrestle for sport if that is what they are wanting to do, but it just looks to me like it is choreographed to get the maximum sexual appeal, almost like a family friendly porno.

In reply to:

---

Maybe I am just looking at it the wrong way

---

I don't think so at all Babymoo - this type of show is just ... well, words fail me. Like you say, soft porn for all the family. And with some 'violence' thrown in for good measure.

Maybe the reigning Miss World should sue the competition organisers because she thought she was voted to her lofty status for her ability to save the world from war, ecological disaster and racial inharmony, and not for the fact that she looks good in a swimsuit...

Not to mention the female sports reporters who enter the locker rooms for the after game interviews...
Oops, watch that towel!

I haven't been following this thread much, but I guess I should throw in my two cents worth. There's very little detail on what the charges were in the court case! Someone trying to sneak a peak at Nicole in the buff? Making a "suit" of a birthday suit! About the WWE...I watched it for years, in passing, as my son grew up, and for awhile there my daughter and husband watched it together. I'm not a prude, and I'm not easily disgusted by gratuitous violence (as part of a "show", of course). For me, I just can't watch it because it's so darned silly! The things that come out of their mouths! The plot line! It rather makes me want to giggle first, then switch channels as fast as I can! I know there is athletic ability required on the parts of the actual wrestlers, and that they can get hurt. There's just not enough there to get my attention.

Even the court case sounds silly..not the issue, just the fact that it even went to court, if it included Nicole Bass (friend of Howard Stern) and that other blowhard McMann! Smacks a little of more "family entertainment" than a substantive issue.
But perhaps I should read up more on the trial! Fat chance!

here's something about the trial!

The jury included at least one wrestling fan, who admitted, "it was tough not being able to ask [the wrestlers] for their autographs." But Cliff Hasey, 44, of Long Island, said as soon as it was over, he got a signature from Lombardi, a k a The Brooklyn Brawler, that said, "To Cliff. Thanks."

www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/59298.htm

Maybe the lawsuit was another publicity stunt that WWE planned. They seem to do alot of strange things like that from what I have heard.

Professional Wrestling is not glorified fighting. History states that wrestling has been out for centuries. Wrestling is an age old sport.

In today's day and age we have amatuer and professional wrestling. Amatuer is Olympic wrestling (Kurt Angle of the WWE is the 1996 Olympic gold medalist), high school wrestling, and college wrestling (Brock Lesnar, the current WWE Undisputed Champion was the National Heavyweight and Champion College Heavyweight). Professional is WWE, ECW, WCW, NWA, OVI, etc.

Kurt Angle stated that he always hated professional wrestling, and was shocked when the day after he won the 1996 gold medal for wrestling in the Olympics, Vince McMahon contacted him to join the WWF(WWE). At that time, six years ago, Kurt declined. But in 1998, he was again approached by McMahon and he was invited to a "Raw" show. After Kurt saw the dedication and the way the wrestlers actually wrestled and put their bodies on the line, he gained a new respect for the sport of professional wrestling. He decided to take McMahon up on his offer and a year later, after much training, Kurt debuted.

Yes, professional wrestling is choreographed, but the outcome of the matches are not known until it actually happens. The reason professional wrestling is choreographed is because back in the 1930's or 40's (I forget exactly which), professional wrestling wasn't choreographed, and during one match in New York, two wrestlers in a main match failed to pin each other for over 3 or more hours. The audience actually fell asleep and some left. The idea came to choreograph the sport to make it more exciting.

Isn't football choreographed? The football players "practice" their moves, don't they? Yet, football is called a "real" sport.

Just because something is choreographed doesn't mean that it isn't real.

The wrestlers can and do get hurt in a match (Triple H is a classic example).

As for the women of professional wrestling, before there were any females in the WWF/WWE, there was an organization called GLOW (Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling) back in the 1980's. These women were tremendous and they, too, put their bodies on the line, and yes, most dressed very provocatively as do the current female wrestlers.

The women of the WWF/WWE are just as good as the men. Ms. Bass, from what I've read and watched was not very coordinated in the ring and was basically a risk to whomever she was up against. This was the reason why the WWE/WWF let her go, not because she was threatening to sue for sexual harrasment.

Just because wrestling has historical longevity doesn't mean it's not glorified fighting.

And historical longevity doesn't make it any more 'right' either. Dog fighting has a great deal of history but I suspect you would be less than supportive of that 'sport', DN.

Wrestling is done by two people with full knowledge that they can hurt themselves and someone else, and even kill them.

Dog Fighting and Cock Fighting is done by two innocent animals, who were taught by their owners to hurt, maim, and kill.

The sports are not the same at all.

In reply to:

---

History states that wrestling has been out for centuries. Wrestling is an age old sport.

---

My comparison with dog fighting was merely to point out that historical longevity doesn't make something any more 'right'. I don't know if you know but we hunt foxes over here for sport - one of the arguments of the pro-hunting fraternity is that of historical longevity and tradition.

Historical longevity is bunk.

In reply to:

---

Wrestling is done by two people with full knowledge that they can hurt themselves and someone else, and even kill them.

---

And I really don't have a problem with wrestlers per se. The problem I have is with the audience. What type of mind would think there's something entertaining about watching 2 men (or women), fighting, and hurting each other? And as you say, potentially, someone getting killed.

Does anyone here think that the wrestling on WWF/WWE is really about hurting each other? It is blatantly staged!

It's not really connected to the sort of wrestling that takes part in sporting events such as "greco-roman wrestling".

Having said that - I agree with Hegley about the crowd, but I think that boxing crowds are far worse and have been present when someone wasn't potentially maimed or killed - it's already happened. Too many times.

In my humble opinion, the only reason it is called "professional" is because they get paid for it. I do not consider it a sport. Staged? Certainly. Bloody? Certainly. Enjoyable? Certainly not for me. I agree with Hegley and Miao -- why do people find it entertaining to see people pound on each other? Bunk. It's all about $$$

However, getting back to the original post -- clearing WWE of sexual harrassment. I find this man's last statement

In reply to:

---

"There isn't one person, who works at the WWE who would risk their dream job to walk in the locker room, and see her naked,"

---

ridiculous.

What the whole thing has done is give this WWE production company just what it wanted -- publicity. And publicity = $$$.

I fully agree with hegley, maiowamberg and others - 'fighting' for entertainment and 'sport' is beyond my comprehension. Isn't there enough violence in the world without encouraging it for entertainment. I remember going to an amateur boxing match when I was a lot younger - not top amateurs, just local boxers. These two men stood in the centre of the ring and traded punches - no finesse, no skill just brute force. Blood flowed and the crowd bayed and I had to leave.
That said, I find the whole wrestling thing too staged and theatrical to be taken seriously - do the wrestlers have to belong to Equity?

As to sexual harassment in this context, in a man's world, you pays your money you takes your chances...
But as to wrestling, in many languages it is broken into two sports, in French le catch is pro wrestling, and la lutte, or battle or struggle is the Olympic type. I'm pretty sure this example holds true elsewhere.
It is on tv here and cast by French Canadians. My son watches it out of idle curiosity and for him, I think it's clear that it's just for fun, like an occasional film with Arnold like Kindergarten Cop or something. Or even Jean Claude Van Damm or Jackie Chan.
The whole thing dates back to time eternal, look at the Roman emperors faced with masses of unemployed urban citizens and wishing to create an impression on them as well as occupying them, they created the stadiums and the forums and what better selling product than violent combat? What a crowd pleaser.
So half of the events were staged, and the other half probably weren't.
It seems to keep the unoccupied especially male population occupied.
Now as true gladiator competitions to the death cannot be allowed in our time, they know there is still a taste for them, and they simply orchestrate them.
I'm pretty sure that my son would find it more like a stunt, or an act, than anything else...

As I myself worked in the sports world, no sex discrimination even in the paddock, thank you very much, I found that having one person do the action, permitted the fans to imagine themselves in his or her place.
We can't speed or we get caught, but we can watch motorsports. And the guy who drives and his team, do the dangerous thing for us.

It seems pretty simple to me.
It's more like acrobats to me than anything else not a combat, but it pretends to be a combat therefore satisfies the public's urges to see danger up close.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like this thread belongs in Controversial Issues rather than Current Events. After all, it seems to me that the original issue is no longer even being discussed -- which was clearing someone/something of sexual harrassment.

In reply to:

---

However, getting back to the original post -- clearing WWE of sexual harrassment.

---

In spite of efforts to return to the original post, we (with just a few exceptions) still seem to be discussing the pros and cons of "wrestling!"

I would agree to an extent (a lot, to be precise) that wrestling is enterainment but those call it a 'sport' is way off the way.
Nothing that is "fixed" is a SPORT - it's a sham.

even if a few of us don't like fights & violence - I believe mankind as a whole relishes it - I DO!



Can ya smell what THE ROCK's cookin' today?

I have heard about assuming......

All I can say is some of those moves they do, and some of the "extras" like hitting each other with chairs etc, should cause alot more bodily harm than they actually do. Why? Because they are shown how to do them to LOOK like they are actually doing them, but as with Hollywood stunts, alot of them aren't really what they appear. If some of those moves were actually performed, they would snap the neck. I don't see how each move of a match could be choreographed WITHOUT knowing who will "win" at the end. If it is choreographed all the way through the match, the end would have to be choreograped also.
Sure, some professional boxing matches, and other sporting events have been fixed so that one person will win (which is illegal), but that is different than with WWE type wrestling that is for entertainment only, and not "real" wrestling.