10/3: Eagles cheerleaders

Undertoad · 10-03-2001, 11:48 AM

Reported last night: a group of former Eagles cheerleaders are suing because they say that visiting teams and a loosely described group of other people were able to see into their locker room while they were changing.

That gives me a chance to use the first image that I actually shot myself. For a while I was involved in producing the Eagles website, and for the 1999 season I was one of those people on the sidelines, photographing the games. I took this pic in December and these are their cold-weather outfits. The actual temperature out there is near freezing.

I'm not against the lawsuit. But come on. By just participating in this, you agree that you are a nameless sexual object on display for 50,000 drunken football fans (and countless milions on TV). By wearing an outfit that, in DECEMBER, shows very clearly whether or not you've had breast enhancement surgery - you don't really have all that much dignity to lose in the first place, much less concern for people not seeing your body.

I'm not against the lawsuit. But come on.

(Note. If you have high bandwidth or patience, and a large monitor, you might enjoy seeing the raw version of the image, exactly as it came out of the digital camera. It's 646k in size and 1600x1200 pixels. But these large-version images are quite striking on large monitors. And if you have any doubt that #2 up there has had surgery, the large version of the image makes it quite clear... that's just unnatural...)

CharlieG · 10-03-2001, 01:07 PM

What camera are/were you using to take these shots. The quality on the raw image was very good

10-03-2001, 01:11 PM

looks suspiciously like a coolpix 950...

my kodak dc290 takes pictures of comparable quality. gonna get myself a canon pro90 though... those things are *awesome*...

Undertoad · 10-03-2001, 01:41 PM

Good call D, it was in fact a Nikon Coolpix 950! I paid the premium to have the best camera of its time. Unfortunately "its time" in digital camera time is like 6 months, but I still love the striking images that it delivers.

That shot was the highest-quality image mode for JPG. The only better image would be TIFF, but when I was shooting the Eagles I would take about 150 shots, and in 1999 CF memory was pretty expensive. A 48 meg card was over $100. Now a 128 meg card is under $50.

I wish I had cool imaging work to do to justify buying the next generation camera. But most of my imaging work these days is selecting stuff for IotD.

ndetroit · 10-03-2001, 01:50 PM

Hmmmm.... I dunno, tony... I think there's a pretty big difference..

That whole "nudity" thing is a big deal in our culture. Look at the stigma's associated with it. I've been on stage a lot, wearing all kinds of stupid shit, but I seriously doubt I'd get up the courage to go naked, no matter what the "artistic reasons".

Nakid vs form-fitting body suits are two very different things.

And I think that the point is not whether or not they consider themselves to be sex objects (they're dancers! hooray!), it's that against their will, they were comprised without their knowledge.

Cheerleaders are sweet and innocent and wear pleated skirts and jump up and down and cheer.

Internet sluts take off all their clothes in sweaty steamy rooms with 20 other girls, while a bunch of guys that they don't know are there watch.

what's the difference? in this case, probably only the hole in the wall...

ndetroit · 10-03-2001, 01:52 PM

oh yeah, and.....

real, fake, real, real, fake?

or is that naive of me to count so many reals? the fourth could be a fake, I guess.

bcbrewery · 10-03-2001, 02:10 PM

Yea, I would have to say that those teeth are capped.

10-03-2001, 02:29 PM

the last ones look real to me. the only ones that look obviously fake are the second ones. but that's just my opinion, i could be wrong...

tony - UT server. tomorrow or friday. let's play

chrisinhouston · 10-03-2001, 02:36 PM

I think the 2 redheads and the blonde must be shopping at the same lingerie store, or perhaps they don't shop at all, considering their underwear lines don't exist.

Some hair too! They look like Texas girls.

Galadriel · 10-03-2001, 03:01 PM

Who picked our those outfits???!!! My God, no one looks good in that. They look like some kind of deranged Green Lantern fan club.

real, fake, real, real, real. If not, they should get their money back. And to any fellow women out there, wouldn't bigger boobs be the last thing you would want if you make a living jumping up and down?

Pie · 10-03-2001, 03:25 PM

And to any fellow women out there, wouldn't bigger boobs be the last thing you would want if you make a living jumping up and down?

Yeah, big ones would get you a couple of black eyes... lol.
But I understand that the fakes don't move nearly as much as real ones do, so while she might avoid the out-of-phase oscillations, she'd probably look even more unlike her fellow performers.

- Pie

Undertoad · 10-03-2001, 03:30 PM

Welp, I'm not AGAINST the lawsuit, I do want to make that clear. I'm only against hypocrisy, which is still not against the law. I'm sure that Mr Lurie [Eagles' owner] will put things right as he is a feminist.

I would say that #2 is the only fake (bc, excellent first post). And ridiculous too. An old gf of mine had a natural chest like that, but she weighed about 180. (Bring on your pathetic comments; I'm a feminist too, a dham-style feminist who believes that modern sexuality is empowering to women. Or have I said too much???)

And my guess is that the cheerleaders with underwear lines are really just looking for some extra support. And given the choice between support hose lines and painful, expensive surgery, I personally would go for option #1.

On the UT server front, I am far too lazy still. Give me another week!

10-03-2001, 04:18 PM

well let's talk on icq or aim or irc or something and find a server we both ping acceptably to and play.

you're upgraded to v436, right?

and, uh, to keep it on topic... i like boobs. or something. hehe.

Joe · 10-03-2001, 04:35 PM

How is it she can even stand upright?

Good lord.

You remember back in the "Voyager" TV series they had this babe called SevenOfNine? She sported a similar physique, and we just called her Two.

jaguar · 10-03-2001, 09:21 PM

Anyone see the irony in this?
CHEERLEADERS. Complaining because they were perved on. OK, dress up in this case, body hugging suit or normally, micro skirt and midriff top what the hell do you expect, bloody hell.

Looks like reasonably thinkish material so it would be unlikely to show lines anyway, has to be pretty thin. On a side note pants made of similar stuff are incredibly popular here at the moment, and have been kindly christened LAMS Look At My Ass.

#2 is hilarious, how obvious is that *lol*. And yea I’m surprised she can stand up too.

10-03-2001, 03:25 PM	#11
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	And to any fellow women out there, wouldn't bigger boobs be the last thing you would want if you make a living jumping up and down? Yeah, big ones would get you a couple of black eyes... lol. But I understand that the fakes don't move nearly as much as real ones do, so while she might avoid the out-of-phase oscillations, she'd probably look even more unlike her fellow performers. - Pie __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

10-03-2001, 04:18 PM	#13
dave Guest Posts: n/a	OT: UT Sever well let's talk on icq or aim or irc or something and find a server we both ping acceptably to and play. you're upgraded to v436, right? and, uh, to keep it on topic... i like boobs. or something. hehe.

10-03-2001, 04:35 PM	#14
Joe Master of the Domain Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: AZ Posts: 221	second from the left How is it she can even stand upright? Good lord. You remember back in the "Voyager" TV series they had this babe called SevenOfNine? She sported a similar physique, and we just called her Two.

10-03-2001, 09:21 PM	#15
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Anyone see the irony in this? CHEERLEADERS. Complaining because they were perved on. OK, dress up in this case, body hugging suit or normally, micro skirt and midriff top what the hell do you expect, bloody hell. Looks like reasonably thinkish material so it would be unlikely to show lines anyway, has to be pretty thin. On a side note pants made of similar stuff are incredibly popular here at the moment, and have been kindly christened LAMS Look At My Ass. #2 is hilarious, how obvious is that lol. And yea I’m surprised she can stand up too. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-03-2001, 11:48 AM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	10/3: Eagles cheerleaders Reported last night: a group of former Eagles cheerleaders are suing because they say that visiting teams and a loosely described group of other people were able to see into their locker room while they were changing. That gives me a chance to use the first image that I actually shot myself. For a while I was involved in producing the Eagles website, and for the 1999 season I was one of those people on the sidelines, photographing the games. I took this pic in December and these are their cold-weather outfits. The actual temperature out there is near freezing. I'm not against the lawsuit. But come on. By just participating in this, you agree that you are a nameless sexual object on display for 50,000 drunken football fans (and countless milions on TV). By wearing an outfit that, in DECEMBER, shows very clearly whether or not you've had breast enhancement surgery - you don't really have all that much dignity to lose in the first place, much less concern for people not seeing your body. I'm not against the lawsuit. But come on. (Note. If you have high bandwidth or patience, and a large monitor, you might enjoy seeing the raw version of the image, exactly as it came out of the digital camera. It's 646k in size and 1600x1200 pixels. But these large-version images are quite striking on large monitors. And if you have any doubt that #2 up there has had surgery, the large version of the image makes it quite clear... that's just unnatural...)

10-03-2001, 01:07 PM	#2
CharlieG Hoodoo Guru Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 301	What camera? What camera are/were you using to take these shots. The quality on the raw image was very good

10-03-2001, 01:11 PM	#3
dave Guest Posts: n/a	looks suspiciously like a coolpix 950... my kodak dc290 takes pictures of comparable quality. gonna get myself a canon pro90 though... those things are awesome...

10-03-2001, 01:41 PM	#4
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Good call D, it was in fact a Nikon Coolpix 950! I paid the premium to have the best camera of its time. Unfortunately "its time" in digital camera time is like 6 months, but I still love the striking images that it delivers. That shot was the highest-quality image mode for JPG. The only better image would be TIFF, but when I was shooting the Eagles I would take about 150 shots, and in 1999 CF memory was pretty expensive. A 48 meg card was over $100. Now a 128 meg card is under $50. I wish I had cool imaging work to do to justify buying the next generation camera. But most of my imaging work these days is selecting stuff for IotD.

10-03-2001, 01:50 PM	#5
ndetroit Master Locutor Join Date: May 2001 Location: vancouver Posts: 158	Hmmmm.... I dunno, tony... I think there's a pretty big difference.. That whole "nudity" thing is a big deal in our culture. Look at the stigma's associated with it. I've been on stage a lot, wearing all kinds of stupid shit, but I seriously doubt I'd get up the courage to go naked, no matter what the "artistic reasons". Nakid vs form-fitting body suits are two very different things. And I think that the point is not whether or not they consider themselves to be sex objects (they're dancers! hooray!), it's that against their will, they were comprised without their knowledge. Cheerleaders are sweet and innocent and wear pleated skirts and jump up and down and cheer. Internet sluts take off all their clothes in sweaty steamy rooms with 20 other girls, while a bunch of guys that they don't know are there watch. what's the difference? in this case, probably only the hole in the wall...

10-03-2001, 01:52 PM	#6
ndetroit Master Locutor Join Date: May 2001 Location: vancouver Posts: 158	oh yeah, and..... real, fake, real, real, fake? or is that naive of me to count so many reals? the fourth could be a fake, I guess.

10-03-2001, 02:10 PM	#7
bcbrewery Sibling of the Commonweal Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 16	Yea, I would have to say that those teeth are capped.

10-03-2001, 02:29 PM	#8
dave Guest Posts: n/a	the last ones look real to me. the only ones that look obviously fake are the second ones. but that's just my opinion, i could be wrong... tony - UT server. tomorrow or friday. let's play

10-03-2001, 02:36 PM	#9
chrisinhouston Professor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,857	I think the 2 redheads and the blonde must be shopping at the same lingerie store, or perhaps they don't shop at all, considering their underwear lines don't exist. Some hair too! They look like Texas girls.

10-03-2001, 03:01 PM	#10
Galadriel Alphabetarian Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 12	Who picked our those outfits???!!! My God, no one looks good in that. They look like some kind of deranged Green Lantern fan club. real, fake, real, real, real. If not, they should get their money back. And to any fellow women out there, wouldn't bigger boobs be the last thing you would want if you make a living jumping up and down?

10-03-2001, 03:30 PM	#12
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Welp, I'm not AGAINST the lawsuit, I do want to make that clear. I'm only against hypocrisy, which is still not against the law. I'm sure that Mr Lurie [Eagles' owner] will put things right as he is a feminist. I would say that #2 is the only fake (bc, excellent first post). And ridiculous too. An old gf of mine had a natural chest like that, but she weighed about 180. (Bring on your pathetic comments; I'm a feminist too, a dham-style feminist who believes that modern sexuality is empowering to women. Or have I said too much???) And my guess is that the cheerleaders with underwear lines are really just looking for some extra support. And given the choice between support hose lines and painful, expensive surgery, I personally would go for option #1. On the UT server front, I am far too lazy still. Give me another week!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)